AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDU: INITIAi,)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

AB
RECORD REVIEW

x	AMERICAN    LEGION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATlON OF COUNSEL

ATTN:    QUEEN BAKER 1608 K STREET NW WASHINGTON DC 20006

MEMBER SITTING

HON

OEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

X*+ X*+
*+

HEARING l>AH:	

27 May 20JO	FD-200800426

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

*+ X*+

ATION fOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
. Or NOTIFICATION
4  BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXllIHITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF Pf:RSONAI. APPEARANCE HEARING

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

Names and votes wil l  be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

*Reason and A uthority
+Reenlistment Code

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78 I504742

SECRETARY  OF HIE AIR  t'ORCE PERSONNEL  COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20761-7001

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2008-00426	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but declined and requests that the review be completed based on the available service record.

The attached brief contains available pe1tinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDING: The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge, change of reason and authority for discharge, and change of reenlistment code.

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:

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. She admits that she made mistakes and was experiencing financial problems with her husband. The applicant also expressed a desire to have her discharge upgraded so that she may be eligible to reenlist into the armed forces. The records indicated the applicant received a Special Court Martial for stealing money from another airman on four different occasions. She was punished with a reduction in grade to Airman Basic and was placed in confinement for four months. The Board concluded that the negative aspects of the applicant's service outweighed the positive contributions she made in her Air Force career. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

CONCLUSION: 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 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 and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief