Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | DRB | CY2001 | FD01-00019
Original file (FD01-00019.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE 

FD-01-00019 

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

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

- 

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

- 

__ 
__ 

FINDINGS:  Upgradekhange 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 substahtiates an inequity 01 
impropriety which would justify a change of discharge. 

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

Issue  1.  Applicant  contends discharge was  inequitable because it was based  on  an  isolated  incident in  16 
months of  service with no  other adverse action.  The records indicated the  applicant was found guilty  in  a 
Special Court-Martial for unlawfully entering the dormitory room of another military member with the intent to 
commit larceny, and thereafter, stole a check.  Later, he did utter and falsely make the signature to a check, and 
steal currency of a value of about $250.00.  The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure 
from conduct expected of all military members.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicanl 
was found to be appropriate. 

~ 

Issue 2 applies to the applicant's post-service activities.  The DRB noted that the applicant would like to serve 
in the military agaip.  However, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was found in the course of the 
hearing.  The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service. 

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  ofthe 
discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 

In  yiew 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 

ANDREWS  AFB, MD 

FD-01-00019 

(Former AB) 

.- 

1 .   MATTER  UNDER  REVIEW:  Appl rec'd  a GEN Disch fr USAF 98/02/06 UP AFI 36-3208, 
para 5.52.3  (Misconduct -  Commission of a Serious Offense).  Appeals for 
Honorable and Change in RE Code Disch. 

2 .   BACKGROUND: 

a. DOB: 78/07/27.  Enlmt Age:  17 11/12.  Disch Age: 19 6/12. Educ:HS DIPL. 

AFQT: N/A.  A-77,  E-49,  G-33,  M-32. PAFSC: 2S031 -  Supply Specialist. 
DAS:  97/02/17. 

-____-  - 

b.  Prior Sv: AFRes 96/07/19 -  96/10/16 (2 months 28 days)(Inactive). 

3 .  

SERVICE  UNDER  REVIEW: 

a.  Enld as AB 96/10/17 for 4 yrs.  Svd: 1 Yrs 3 Mo 20 Das, of which AMs  is 

1 Yr 2 Mos 1 Day  (excludes 1 month 21 days lost time). 

b.  Grade Status:  AB -  97/12/16  (SPCMO No.3,  98/01/12) 

.

-  

AMN  -  97/04/17 

c.  Time Lost:  97/12/16-98/02/04 (1 month 21 days) 

d.  Art 15's:  none. 
e.  Additional: none. 
f .   CM:  Special Court Martial Order No.3 -  98 Jan 12 

3 

CHARGE I:  Article 121.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty. 

d 

: Gui 1 t y . 

Specification 1:  Did, o/a  1 Aug 97, steal U.S.  currency, of a 
value of $250.00, the property of A1C ------- .  Plea.; Guilty. 
- 
Finding 
Specification 2:  Did, o/a 26 Jul 97, steal a blank check, of a 
nominal value, the property of A1C ------- .  Plea: Guilty. 
Finding: Guilty. 
CHARGE 11:  Article 123.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty. 

-- 

I - 

*L 

"__ 

i 

- 

Specification:  Did, o/a 1 Aug 97, with intent to defraud, uttered 
a certain check, drawn upon the account of A1C -------, in the 
amount of $250.00, a writing which would, if genuine, apparently  -- 
operate to the legal harm of another, the signature to which said 
check was falsely made.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty. 

CHARGE 111:  Article 130.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty. 

mol-0001 9 

Specification:  Did, o/a 26 Jul 97, unlawfully enter a dormitory 
room, the property of the U.S. Government, assigned to A1C ------, 
with the intent to commit criminal offense, to wit: larceny. 
Plea-rGuilty.  Finding: Guilty.  Sentence: adjudged o n 3  Dec 97: - 
Confinement for two months, forfeiture of $300.00 pay per month 
for four months, and reduction to airman basic. 

__ 
- 

g.  Record of SV: none. 

(Discharged from Mountain Home AFB) 

h.  Awards 6  Decs:  AFTR. 

i.  Stmt of Sv:  TMS:  (1) Yrs  ( 4 )   Mos  (27) Das 
TAMS:  (1) Yrs  (2) Mos  (1) Das 

. 

4 .   BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW:  Appln  (DD Frn  293) dtd 00/11/18. 

(Change Discharge to Honorable and Change RE Code) 

Issue 1:  My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated 

incident in 16 months of service with no other adverse action.  The reason why 
I'm taking time out to do this is because, several weeks ago I attempted to get 
a job on the AFB in Mountain Home, according to requirements you had to have a 
honorable discharge.  Not this job being the only job in the world, but one job 
I could of had.  The second reason I would like the change is because I would 
like to have a>other  chance in the military. 
I've been out the military  (sic) 
since 98 and overthe years I have matured and feel if the opportunity is given 
that I would never make the same mistake again.  The time that I was in I 
enjoyed hy self and could really make it a career.'. I hope that you would 
consider changing my discharge to a honorable and the seperation code if 
possible.  I thank you for your time. 

ATCH 
none. 
+ 

\ 

01/01/18/ia 

.- 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 
HEADOUARTERS 366TH WING (ACC) 

MOUNTAIN HOME AIR FORCE BASE, IDAHO 

-___ 

MEMORANDUM FOR 366 WGICC 

1_ 

FROM:  366 WGIJA 

SUBE 

. 

of  a  Serious  Offense. 
probation and rehabilitation (P&R). 

He  recommends  a  general  discharge  characterization  without 

2.  Rewondent’s Personal Data:  This  19 year  old  Respondent has  approximately one 
year  and  three  months  of  creditable  service.  A  detailed  summary  of  Respondent’s 
personal  data  is  contained  in  paragraph  2  of  the  Commander’s  Recommendation  for 
Discharge letter. 

3.  Basis for Dischawe:  Airmen are subject to discharge under MI  36-3208, paragraph 
5.52.3,  based  on  commission  of  a  serious  offense  if  a  punitive  discharge  would  be 
authorized  for  the  same  offense  under  the  UCh4J. 
In  this  matter,  the  Respondent 
unlawfully entered  the  dormitory  room  of  another  military  member  with  the  intent  to 
commit larceny  and, thereafter, stole a check.  Furthermore,  on  or  about  1  Aug  97,  he 
uttered and falsely made the signature to that %heck, and stole US currency of a value of 
about $250.00.  Respondent was convicted of these crimes in a special court-martial on  15 
Jan 98, and  although the court  did  not give Respondent  a punitive  discharge, the UCMJ 
authorized one for these offenses. 

~ 

- 

4.  ResDondent’s  Statement: Respondent was informed of his right to submit matters in 
response  td7his  action,  and  he  did  so. (See  Tab  4).  The  Respondent  requests 
reconsideration of the decision to discharge him for a number of reasons.  First, he asserts 
that  he  deeply  regrets his actions and  realizes he  has  disappointed  his  commander  and 
members of his wit.  Secondly, however, Respondent points out that he pled guilty =Whis 
offenses and has paid his debt to society by serving his sentence.  He hopes these facts will 
be taken into consideration during the review of his package, in addition to the fact that he 
has never engaged in any type of misconduct before.  Finally, Respondent states that he  is 
dedicated to his job and would like the opportunity to prove himself. 

5.  Errors or Irreeularities: None. 

-. ____ 

- 

_- 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | DRB | CY2001 | FD01-00011

    Original file (FD01-00011.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE CASE NUMBER FD-01-00011 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable. Attachment: Examiner's Brief & + - DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE DISCHARGE &VIEW BOARD ANDREWS AFB, MD m-01-00011 (Former AMN) .- 1. The commander exercising SPCM jurisdiction or a higher authority will decide whether you are discharged or retained in the Air Force and, if you are discharged, how your service will be characterized.

  • AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2000-0105

    Original file (FD2000-0105.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD2002-0105 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. Such a discharge characterization, where the sole basis for discharge is a serious offense that resulted in conviction by a court-martial and the court declined to issue a punitive discharge, can only be approved by the Secretary of the Air Force (para 1.21.3). Recommendation: Discharge Respondent with a general discharge without PER.

  • AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2002-0028

    Original file (FD2002-0028.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant received a Bad Conduct Discharge, a punitive discharge, as part of his sentence resulting from a Special Court-Martial conviction. Attachment: Examiner's Brief DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ANDREWS AFB, MD FD2002-0028 (Former AB) (HGH Unknown) 1. Plea: G. Finding: G. Specification: Did, at or near Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, from on or about 20 y, of a value of about September 1997 to on or about 10 October 19 $2,600.00, the property of...

  • AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2002-0455

    Original file (FD2002-0455.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE | po9_9455 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. The records indicated the applicant received a General Discharge for Misconduct — Commission of a Serious Offense after being found guilty by a Special Court Martial for wrongfully using a credit card that was not his. In view of the foregoing findings the board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of...

  • AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2002-0156

    Original file (FD2002-0156.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. Applicant was discharged for misconduct, commission of a serious offense. In his written statement, AB aga@i¥requests that he not be discharged from the Air Force or if he is discharged, then he asks that he receive an honorable discharge.

  • AF | DRB | CY2004 | FD2003-00497

    Original file (FD2003-00497.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    3RD FLOOR 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-2003-00497 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and to change the reenlistment code. This action could result in your separation with an under other than honorable (UOTHC) service characterization. In addition to military counsel, you have the right to employ civilian counsel.

  • AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2001-0317

    Original file (FD2001-0317.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Attachment: Examiner's Brief FD2001-0317 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ANDREWS AFB, MD (Former A1C) 1. (Change Discharge to Honorable) Issue 1: I feel my discharge was inequitable because it was based on (1) isolated incident in 4 years of service. As the Separation Authority, you may: | a. Retainagigiier you find that discharge is not warranted by the evidence or under the circumstances; or nd b. Separateg@igayaeritn a general discharge with or without P&R;...

  • AF | DRB | CY2001 | FD01-00008

    Original file (FD01-00008.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Attachment: Examiner's Brief i DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ANDREWS AFB, MD ED-01-00008 (Former AB) MISSING DOCUMENTS - * - - 1. b. Grade Status: AB - 98/12/31 (SPCMO #11, 98/12/31) c. Time Lost: (Examiner's Note: In accordance with Special Courts Martial Order No.11, applicant was sentenced to 6 months confinement. Finding: Guilty (of the charged offense of larceny).

  • AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00053

    Original file (FD2003-00053.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    mere AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSN/SSAN SRA | ee PERSONAL APPEARANCE X RECORD REVIEW ] NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL NONE MEMBERS SITTING ea ISSUES INDEX NUMBER f iS ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD A93.11, A94.05, A94.53 447.00 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE LETTER OF NOTIFICATION HEARING DATE 03-05-28 CASE NUMBER FD2003-00053 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL’S RELEASE...

  • AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2002-0024

    Original file (FD2002-0024.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The records indicated applicant had received a Letter of Reprimand for Adultery and found guilty by a Summary Court Martial for Adultery. Discharge is appropriate. (Atch 1-1) Copies of the documents to be forwarded to the separation authority in support of this recommendation are attached.