AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMllER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL}

GRADE

AlC
X	RECORD  REVIEW

AFSN/SSAN

Al>DRESS Al'iD OR ORGAMZATION OF COUNSEL

x
x
x

ISSllltS

A94.05

INIJEX NUMBER

A67.l0

1  ORDER APPO!NTfNG THE BOARD
2 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4 BRlEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARlNG

HEARING  DAn:	CASE NUMBER

27 May 2010	FD-2009-00059

Case heard in Washi ngton, 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 application to the AFBCMR.

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

i I

SAF/MRFJ R
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

I  ·ROM:

IJAlJ<;:    IJ/ /IJ.IHU

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUl'iCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR
ANl>REWS AFB, MD 20762-70111

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)

Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD-DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2009-00059	

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

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

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

FINDINGS:  The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge.

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.

ISSUES:

Although not explicitly stated, applicant contends her discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.
She submits that she was misinformed at the time of her discharge and that she could have been separated
due to pregnancy.  The records indicated the applicant received eight Letters of Reprimand and two Letters of Counseling for misconduct.  Her misconduct consisted of failing to report for duty (4x), failure to pay debts (3x), playing games with another airman, disobeying an order and neglecting the mission, being involved with domestic disturbance, and violating dorm room security.  The ORB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change her negative behavior.  The Board
concluded that the negative aspects of the appl icant'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.

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 the applicant 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