AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	Al<'SN/SSAN

AMN

RECORD REVIEW

AlllllU::SS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

GEN	UOTHC

x

ISSUES

A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

x
x
x

ORDER  APPOINTING  THE  BOARD APPLICATION  r"OR REVIEW Of  DISCHARGE
i  3   LETTER OF NOTJfJCA TION
4  BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HF.ARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

13 May 2010	FD-2009-00103

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

DCHA,ROJi.!;:VU!W llOAR!l DllCISIONi)-LRATlONAl.E, _
f;' ' ;

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit ru1
application to the A FBCMR.

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

SAF/MRBR 550 C STREET RANDOL!'l l

SECRETARY OF THE AIR
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMANll llR, f.;;WING, 3RD FLOOR ANl!IU;ws  tWll.Mll  20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2009-00103  ,	

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 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.

FINDING:  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.

ISSUE:

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, a Vacation, five Letters of Reprimand, a Letter of Admonishment and three Records oflndividual Counseling for misconduct.   Her misconduct include being late for work (4x), failing dorm room inspections (2x), speeding on base, failure to pay Star Card, making a false official statement, failure to pay debts, and misuse of government resources.  The DRB 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 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