AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE  INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

·' ------------------------------ ·'

AB	'----------------'

''	''
------------------------------ ·
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	RECORD REVIEW

'
---------------'

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

x

MEMBER SITTING

'L•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTl l ER

DENY
x x x
x
x

ISSUl!:S

A93.0l A94.05

INDF;X NUMBER

A67.90

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD

2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIF!CATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITI   NAL EXHIBITS   UBMITTED AT TIME    F
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING DATE	CASE NllMBf:R

10 May 2007	FD-2006-00458

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an appl ication to the AFBCMR.

Names and votes wi ll be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

- --- -- --- ----- ----- --- -- --- ----- --- -- --- -- --- ----- --- -- --- ----- ----- --- -- --- ----- --- -- --- -- --- -- -- --- -- --- ----- ----- ---------1

SAl'/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

Sl!:CBF;TARY OF THE AIR FORet; p ;RSONNEL COUNCii. AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMANll DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOI< ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2006-00458	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

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

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 the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the Board was unable to identify any that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE:

Although not explicitly stated, applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  She admits that she was young, naYve, and following the wrong crowd.  The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15s and a Letter of Reprimand for misconduct.  The first Article 15 was for stealing a pair of shoes, two video games, a picture frame, a pair of pants, a shirt, a portable compact disc player from the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES); and theft of $78.00 from AAFES.  She was punished with a reduction in grade to Airman Basic, restricted to RAF Lakenheath for 20 days and 20 days of extra duty.  The second Article 15 was for theft of two pairs of shoes and a Panasonic video cassette adapter from AAFES.  For this misconduct, she was reduced in grade to Airman Basic, restricted to RAF Lakenheath for 30 days and received a reprimand.	She was also administratively disciplined for being a passenger in a vehicle operated by a driver under the influence of alcohol.  The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change her negative behavior.  The Board concluded the applicant's misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military 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