AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE 

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable, change of reason for discharge, and 
change of reenlistment eligibility (RE) code. 

LAbb NUMt5k.K 
FD-01-00006 

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel at Andrews 
AFB, MD on March 22, 2001.  The following type of witness also testified on the applicant’s behalf:  Mr. A- J- 
(her husband). 

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: 

Exhibit 5 : Applicant’s contentions 

Exhibit 6: Complaint for Divorce-September 23, 1993 

Exhibit 7:  Complaint for Divorce-June 4, 1993 

Exhibit 8:  Government Housing Document 

Exhibit 9:  Character Reference 

Exhhibit 10: Resume 

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

FINDINGS: Upgrade of/changes of reason for discharge and change of RE code are denied. 

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

The applicant’s issues are listed in the attached brief. 

Issues 1-4 will be addressed jointly.  Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh- 
that an LOR fiom her first enlistment should not have been used in characterizing her general discharge, that 
her ROIC,  dated  1  December  1993, was for an incident she had  not been trained  for, that  she had  personal 
problems duriag this time of service, and that the Air Force had the resources to help her more than they did. 
The records indicated the applicant received during her last enlistment an Article 15, two Letters of Reprimand 
(LORs),  a  Letter  of  Counseling,  and  a  Record  Of  Individual  Counseling  (ROIC)  for  misconduct.  The 
misconduct  included writing bad  checks, being  disrespectful to  her  supervisor, willful neglect  of duty, and 
dereliction of duty.  The DRB considered all of her mitigating circumstances, but opined that through these 
administrative actions and the assistance of base officials, the applicant had ample opportunities to correct her 
situation.  The  Board  concluded  the  misconduct was  a  significant departure  from  conduct kxpected  of  all 
military members.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate. 

Issue 5 applies to’the applicant’s post-service activities.  The DRE3  was pleased to  see that the applicant was 
doing well and has a good job.  However, no inequity or impropfiety in her discharge was suggested or found in 
the course of the hearing.  The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized her 
term of service. 

* 

Page 2 (Cont'd) 

FD01-00006 

Issue 6.  The DRB recognized the fact that the applicant had serve six years total service before the discharge 
was initiated, but concluded the applicant's misconduct outweighed the positive aspects of her time in the Air 
Force.  The Board noted the applicant was entitled to request an administrative discharge board, but there was 
no indication in the records that she had been given that opportunity.  They determined that this error did not 
constitute prejudicial error, i.e., there was not substantial doubt that  the discharge would have remained the 
same if the error had not been made. 

- 

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 
upgradelchange of reason for discharge and change of RE code, thus the applicant's discharge should not be 
changed. 

Attachment: 
Examiner's Brief 

-. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 

k R E W . 9   AFB,  MD 

FD-01-00006 

(Former A1C) MISSING DOC-TS 
- - 

1.  MATTER UNDER REVIEW:  Appl rec'd  a GEN Disch fr USAF 95/02/06 UP AFI 36-3208, 
para 5.50.1  (Misconduct -  Discreditable Involvement with Military or  Civil 
Authorities).  Appeals for Honorable Disch. 

2.  BACKGROUND: 

a. DOB: 71/05/24.  Enlmt Age:  17 7/12.  Disch Age: 23 8/12. Educ:HS DIPL. 

AFQT: N/A.  A-67,  E-49,  G-48,  M-30. PAFSC: 3M051 - Morale, Welfare, Recreation 
&  Services Journeyman. DAS: 90/01/03. 

b.  Prior Sv: AFRes 89/01/19 -  89/07/26 (6 months 8 days)(Inactive). 

das, all AMs. 

AMN  -  90/01/27.  A1C -  90/11/27.  SRA  -  92/07/27.  EPRs: 4,4. 

(2) Enld as AB 89/07/27 for 4 yrs.  Svd: 3 yrs 0 mos 28 

3.  SERVICE UNDER REVIEW: 

a.  Reenld as SRA  92/08/25 for 4 yrs.  Svd: 2 Yrs 5 Mo 12 Das, all AMs. 
b.  Grade Status:  A1C -  94/12/28 (Article 15, 94/12/28) 
c.  Time Lost:  none. 

- 

d.  Art 15's: 

(1) 94/12/28, Moody AFB, GA - Article 123a.  You did, o/a 4 
Oct 94, with intent to defraud and for the procurement 
of lawful currency, wrongfully and unlawfully make and 
utter to -------, a certain check for the payment of 
cash in the amount of $50.00,  dated 4 Oct 94, drawn upon 
the ---------  Bank, made payable to the order of ------, 
and signed -------, then knowing that you, the maker 
thereof, did not or would not have suficient funds in or 
credit with said bank for the payment of said check in 
full upon its presentment.  Rdn to A1C.  (No appeal) 
(No mitigation) 

e.  Additional: LOR, 13 DEC 91 -  Disrespect to supervisor. 

RIC, 01 DEC 93 - Willful neglect of duty. 
LOR, 20 MAY 94 -  Bad checks. 
LOC, 15 DEC 94 -  Dereliction of duty. 
LOR, 13 JAN 95 -  Bad check. 

* 

f.  CM:  none. 

g.  Record of SV:  92/03/27  93/03/26  Moody AFB  5  (Annual) 
c 

93/03/27  94/03/26  Moody AFB  3  (Annual) 

(Dischar9e.d from Moody AFB) 

E'DO1-00006 

h.  Awards &  Decs:  AFLSAR, AFTR, NDSM, NCOPMER, AFOUA, AFGCM. 
i.  Stmt of Sv:  TMS:  (6) Yrs  (0) Mos  (18) Das 
TAMS:  (5) Yrs  (6) Mos  (10) Das 

_I 

~ 

.- 

- 

4 .   BASIS ADVANCED FOR  REVIEW:  Appln  (DD Fm 293) dtd 00/11/20. 

(Change Discharge to Honorable) 

NO ISSUES SUBMITTED. 

ATCH 
1. Congressional Correspondence. 
2. DD Form 214. 
3 .   Character Reference. 
4. Performance Appraisal. 
5. Six Character References. 

01/01/03/ia 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTEM 347TU WIN6 (ACC) 
MODY AIR  F O M  WE, QWA 

1 February  1995 

- 

MEMORANDUM FOR 347 WG/CC 

FROM:  347 WG/JA 

SUBJECT: 

of AFI 36-3208 Discharge Action: 
, 347th Services Squadron 

1.  I have 
find it legally sufficient.  Th 
recommends the respondent 
Command 
rce with an under honorable conditions (general) 
be involun 
discharge under the authority of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.50.1, for a pattern of misconduct 
(discreditable involvement with military or civil authorities).  The commander does not 
recommend the respondent be offered an opportunity for a program of probation and 
rehabilitation (P & R). 

2.  In reviewing the evidence presented, I find there exists a legally sufficient basis to warrant 
separating -from 

the Air Force. 

a.  Is there a basis for dischawe? AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.50.1, states that airmen are 
subject to discharge for a pattern of misconduct consisting of discreditable involvement with 
military or civil authorities.  Acts which were or might have been punished under the UCMJ,  as 
well as civil offenses, may form the basis for discharge.  In this case, 
failed to pay her 
just debts on seven separate occasions and was derelict in her duties on three separate occasions. 
Moreover, on one occasion- 
eleven offenses of this type can constitute a pattern of misconduct.  Therefore, there exists a basis 
for discharge under the regulation. 

manifested disrespect towards her superior. Clearly, 

- 

b.  Shod 

e discharged?  In deciding whether to discharge-ou 
e

r

may proper1 y E m b
Seven 0- 
writing checks with insufficient funds to cover them.- 
checks despite a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and Unfavorable Information File (UIF)  entries. 

 and nature of, and circumstances surrounding, the offenses. 

eleven acts of misconduct involved financial irresponsibility, sp&%imlly, 

continued to write “bad” 

To compound these acts of misconduct, she was blatantly irresponsible in the handling of the Air 
Force’s financial 
supplies.  Clearly 
and should be discharged. 

g the government to pay for over $38,000.00 of unnecessary 
as shown that she lacks the qualities necessary of today’s airmen, 

c 

\ 

c 

-- 

- 

c.  What service characterization shod- 

eceive?  AFI 36-3208, paragraph 

1.18.2, states that an under honorable conditions (general) service characterization is appropriate 
when the airman’s service has been honest and faithfbl but significant negative aspects of the 
airman’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of his or her military service. 

as been in the Air Force over four and a half years.  In that period of time, she 
engaged in a serious pattern of misconduct that outweighs the positive aspects of her military 
service.  Therefore, an under honorable conditions (general) discharge is appropriate and legally 
justifiable. 

- 

d.  Should- 

e offered a period P & R?  AFI 36-3208, paragraph 7.3,Bates that 
airmen should be offered an opportunity for P & R if they have demonstrated a potential to serve 
satisfactorily, have the capacity to be rehabilitated for fbture service, and whose retention on 
active duty in a probationary status is consistent with the maintenance of good order and 
discipline in the Air Force. 

- 

uccessive acts of misconduct, the commander gave her 
OC), established a UIF, and punished her under Article 
effort to rehabilitate her.  Obviously, these efforts at rehabilitation failed because 
ntinued to write bad checks, even after LOR and UIF actions.  The fact that AlC 
of continued administrative action shows that she does 
the potential to serve satisfactorily or the capacity to be rehabilitated for fbture service. 

0 January 1995 written response to the notification 

memorandum.  I co 
misconduct are not 
needless supplies was due to unfamiliarity with the job.  However, she had been trained to 
perform the job, had been familiar with the job for almost a month, and had only to perform a 
simple task of re-checking an order. 

mmander that the excuses she now asserts for her acts of 
t, she claims that her neglect in ordering over $38,000.00 of 

- 

iii.  Secon 
because a friend h 
access to a bank account to an unrelated party, under certain circumstances, could amount to 
financial irresponsibility in itself  However, having knowingly given someone else access to her 
account, she had an even greater duty to monitor her checking account balance. 

laims that five of the seven bad checks she wrote were returned 
money from her account via an automated teller machine.  Giving 

*- - 

iv.  As far as the other two acts of financial i 
of the instances the bank made an error in her accou 
claim by providbg proof of this error.  Concerning t 
admits to not having the appropriate f h d s  for the draft.  She asserts that she did not have the 
money due to twexpenses she was incurring as a result of her marital problems.  Obviously, she 
should not have issued the draft without proper funds, and her lack of funds, no matter how 
compelling the reason, does not excuse issuance of an insufficient hnds check. 

cial irresponsibility, she 

aims that in one 

as derelict in the performance of her duties in that she failed to 
k Control Journal (SBCJ) for the October 19 
and the November 1994 beginning inventory.  This failure is simply dereliction 
claims once again that she was unfamiliar with the job, yet she signed the 15 December 1994 

z 

Letter of Counseling in which Management Support Center Supervisor 
documented tha- 
not 
posted (Attachment le, Notification Memorandum, dated 19 January 1995). 
submit mitigating evidence or refbte the allegation of dereliction at the time the LOC was served. 

sured her two or three times that the inven 

3.  As an airman with less than six years in service 
to an administrative discharge board. 
Area Defense Counsel, and submitte 

ents for your consideration 

case 
the 

- 
ysical examination is not yet complete.  However, AFI 36-3208 almws 

4. 
processing of involuntary discharge actions to continue up until actual separation.  Any approved 
discharge is then held in abeyance until the member is found medically qualified for worldwide 
duty. 
5.  This action has been prepared in substantial compliance with AFI 36-3208. As the Special 
Court-Martial Convening Authority, you have the following options: 

a.  Retain the respondent; 

b.  Recommend to the General Court-Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA) (9 AF/CC) 

that the respondent be separated with an honorable discharge with or without the opportunity for 
P & R; 

c.  Approve an under honorable conditions (general) discharge with or without the 

opportunity for P & R; or, 

d.  Direct that the unit commander reinitiate for processing IAW board hearing procedures if 

you believe an under other than honorable conditions discharge may be warranted. 

separated with an under honorable conditions 
6.  I recommend that you direc-e 
(general) discharge without the opportunity for P & R, but that you hold the execution of the 
discharge in abeyance until completion of her p h y s i a  
qualified for worldwide duty. 

inathn showing her medicallv 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR  FORCE 

nwwums mw  WING  (ACC) 
MOOBY AIR  FORCE BASE,  6to1161A 

.-  

- - 

MEMORANDUM FO 

FROM:  347 SVSKC 

SUBJECT:  Notification Memorandum 

19 January 1995 

.___~  

1.  I am recommending your discharge from the United States Air Force for a pattern of misconduct 
(discreditable involvement with military or civil authorities).  The authority for this action is AFPD 
36-32 and AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.50.1. If my recommendation for discharge is approved, your 
service will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions (general).  I am 
recommending that your service be characterized as under honorable conditions (general). 

2.  My reasons for this action are as follows: 

a.  Between on or about 26 October 1993 and on or about 18 November 1993, you engaged in 

the following misconduct: 

+ 

(1)  On or about 26 October 1993, you were derelict in the performance of your duties in 

that you did not review an order placed into the computer system and obligated the government for 
$45,462.84 of products when you should have only ordered $7,000.00 of products.  Your neglect 
caused the Troop Support operation to have a six-month supply of excess products and caused the 
government to expend resources to transport these products to other locations. 

. _  

(21  On or about 12 November 1993, the Troop Support operations received three pdets of 

tomato paste, well above the normal requirement.  On or about 17 November 1993, two trucks 
arrived with 42 pallets.  On or about 18 November 1993, a truck arrived with 23 more pallets, and 
ou never infom@mmnagement of this problem.  In additio 

_I 

. 

i 

ed by store personnel, app 

ager;*aA*- 
e the necess@  action to cancel the rest of the o 
Southern Region, DPSC Charleston, and base perso 
products arrived. 
For these offenses, you were counseled, as documented by an AF Form 174 (Atch la). 

* 

c 
-

-

 

b.  Between on or about 20 March 1994 and on or about 9 April 1994, you wrote five (5) 

checks in the amount totaling about $56.85 to 
failed to place or maintain sufficient funds in your account to pay these checks in fill upon their 
presentment for payment.  For these offenses, you received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) which was 
placed in an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) (Atch 1 b). 

in Valdosta, Georgia, and thereafter, 

c.  On or about 4 October 1994, you did, at or near Valdosta, Georgia, with intent to defraud 

and for the procurement of lawful currency, wrongfblly and unlawfblly make and utter t

o

m

 

e payment of cash in the a 
ade payable to the order 
aker thereof, did not or w 

bank for the payment of said check in full upon its presentment.  For this offense, you received 
nonjudicial punishment pursuant to Article 15 , UCMJ.  Punishment included reduction from the 
grade of senior airman to the grade of airman first class (Atch 1 c). 

d.  On or about 13 October 1994, you wrote a check to the Moody AFB Exchange in the 

amount of about $50.00, and thereafter, failed to place or maintain sufficient knds in your account 
to pay this check in full upon its presentment for payment.  For this offense, you received an LOR 
(Atch Id). 

e.  Between on or about 1 November 1994 and on or about 15 December 1994, you werg,, 

derelict in the performance of your duties in that you failed to properly complete the Store €Iaq$l 
Control Journal (SBCJ) for 

M Y  
- 

ctober 1994 and beginning inventory for 
t all blocks of the SBCJ were properly posted 
correct.  In addition, while preparing the 

scovered that five .(5) receipts in the amount of. 
A, of the SBCJ.  On or about 13 December 

- 

amount of $97,523.06. For this offense, you received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) (Atch le). 

ice Center (Accounts and Receivable),  advise 

You used $98,176.76 instea 

- 

In addition to the above stated reasons which establish a basis for your discharge, your record also 
contains the following derogatory information:  On or about 5 December 1991 , you were 
disrespectEd to your supervisor and walked out of a meeting without being dismissed.  For this 
offense, you received an LOR (Atch 2). 

__ 

- 

of the do- 

-Sopies 
-
-.axmwendatieww&&ah 

 - 
- 
-
+  jurisdiction or a higher authority will decide whether you will be discharged or retained isthe Air 

to be forwarded to the separation authority in support of t M  
ed. The commander exercising Special Court-Martial (SPL2id)- 

Force and, if you are discharged, how your service will be characterized. If you are discharged, you 
will be ineligible for reenlistment in the Air Force. 

3.  You have the right to consult counsel.  Military legal counsel has been obtained to assist you.  I 
have made an appointment for you to consu 
n Bldg 5109, Room 3, on 19 Januarv 
- 1995 at 1400.  Please take your copy of this Notification Memorandum and the attachments with 
you to your appointment.  You may consult civilian counsel at your own expense. 

4.  You have the right to submit statements in your own behalf  Any statements you want the 
separation authority to consider must reach me within three duty days d e r  receipt Of'lhE 
notification memorandum, unless you request and receive an extension for good cause shown.  I will 
send any statement(s) you submit to the separation authority. 

* 

5.  If you fail to consult counsel or to submit statements in your own behalf, your failure will 
constitute a waiver of your right to do so. 

J 

6.  You have been scheduled for a medical examination.  You must report to the Moody Air Force 
Base Hospital, Physical Exams Section, Bldg 3296, at 0730 on 23 January 1995 for the 
examination.  This is a mandato?  appointment. 

7.  Any personal information you fbrnish in rebuttal is covered by the Privacy Act Statement.  A 
copy of AFI 36-3208, is available for your use in the orderly room. 

8.  Execute the attached acknowledgment and return it to me immediately. 

Commander, 347th Services Squadron 

- 

* 

. _  

Attachments: 
1.  Supporting Documents, Reasons for Discharge 

a.  AF Form 174, 1 Dec 93 
b.  LOR, 20 May 94 
c.  AFForm 3070,6 Jan 95 
d.  LOR/UIF,  13 Jan 95 
e.  LOC,  15 Dec 94 

<+. Other Deroga@@d'ormation 

3  3.  Airman's Recei)st_of  Notification Memorandum 

3 m L -