=

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

·:-------------------------- :	AB	·_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_:

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST M mDLE INITIAL)	GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

i  TY---P-t-.-G--E--N----------------P!-E_R_S_O_N_A_L AP-P_E_A_R_A_N_C_E	X	l	REC_O__R_D_R_E_V_  EW	.   --

YES	No
x

NAME OF COUNSEt  AND OR  ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  m·COUNSEL

1

.·•:' . :++:·:'<< "'	... ::1uIII::.   .::"""":::im<w"  THE 80 :iR::1ill'--"-'r--"  -"'''··

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER

DENY

X*

'

''

'	::-
'

X*

'

''	X*
'
---------------------------------------

ISSllES

A94.05 A93.09

INDl:X NUMBER

A67.90

ORDER APPOINTING THE BOAR D
2	APPLICATION f'OR REVIEW or DISCHARGE

3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4		BRIEP or PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOAR D
ADDITIONAi . EXH IBITS SUBMITTED AT TI ME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDI NG OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

lll:ARING  DATE	CASE NUMBER

28 Jul 2006

FD-2005-00410

.......•....

.................   . .

NALRATlONAU':
··.··· ·

Case heard in Wash ington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel , and the r ight to submit an application to the AFBCMR

Names and votes wi l I   be made available to the appl icant at the appl icant's request.

*Reason and Authority

/
tJlJ!!l"ATJ!RE.'l>LR};_lW!QIL  ••••..f../.	.......d.•.•....•L ........'1.S.WJ:'INJJ.Ej}'!l9J!IP! ! J?. IH ••••••••••••• - •••••••••••••••

'

''
- - - - - - - - - - - ;::::j,:::(/.:j, - - - - - - - ..- - - - ,, 'r:.:. .. ..- - - - - - - ·c.·r -.. ..  - - -:.... ...:.... .... ....:..- - -r - - - - - v·- - - - - .:. ::... .... ... ...:- - - - ,:,.,.:,.,.:.,.:.... ..  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .-.. ...  - - - - -:..- -

1

>>•':\,,>>•+ . . . . . NDORSEMEN1!<<t••·•:•+•11+t	.	··· · : .•·· •·1 >:>Ii\t	:IIIf ·• c·	..... .•. .....DATE: 7/3112006

TO:

SAF/M R RR
550 C STREET WEST, SU ITE 40 RA N DOLPH Af.B, TX 78150-4742

·;·:,.,..."-.:,.------- ........·. r FROl

............ '" ' '"'""----	-----

SECRETAlff OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL Am FORCK DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARU
1535 COMMAND Dll, EE WING, lRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

I

AFHQ  FORM 0-2077, JAN  00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AJR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOA RD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00410	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and to change the reason and authority for the discharge.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but declined to exercise this ri ght.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge is denied.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge

ISSUE:

Issue 1. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 and two Letters of Reprimand for misconduct.  In reverse order of occurrence, the Letters of Reprimand were for having an unescorted person found in her dormitory room, unauthorized travel out of the area, disrespect to a Noncommissioned Officer and insubordination.  The Article 15 was for theft.  She was reduced in grade to airman basic, suspended forfeiture of pay and restriction to the limits of Little Rock AFB for 30 days.  The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change her negative behavior.  The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all mil itary members.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS:  The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

In view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief