AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE 

CASE W B E R  

FD-01-0002 7 

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 thxscharge. 

-___ 

- 

FINDINGS: Upgrade oflchange of reason for discharge are denied. 

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

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

Issue 1.  Applicant states that his discharge was improper due to an inaccurate EPR used in the discharge proceedings. 
After careful examination of the record, the Board found this to be without merit.  The applicant received one EPR, 
closing our April 29, 1997. The report, an overall “2” (i.e., promotion not recommended at this time), was signed on 
April 30, 1997 and referred to the member for comment.  Having failed to receive comments from the member within 
the required 10 day period, the Indorser closed the report out on May 12, 1997 supporting the assessment of the rater. 
While the applicant may believe the report focused too heavily on his shortcomings during the rating period versus his 
positive accomplishments, the Board found nothing wronghproper with the report. 

Issues 2 and 3.  These issues are similar and will be addressed jointly.  Applicant believes his discharge to be 
inequitableltoo harsh because he knows of two other “similar” airmen who received honorable discharges and because 
of the “new DoD policy on maltreatment and harassment”.  A thorough review of the record showed that the applicant 
received one Article 15, four,Letters  of Reprimand, and one Letter of Counseling for multiple incidents of misconduct 
(e.g., failure to go, late for duty, dereliction of duty, carrying a concealed weapon, passing bad check, etc.). The DRB 
opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. 
The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.  The 
characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate. As the Board was not aware 
of the two other airmen or the specifics of their cases, it was unable to determine if they were similarly situated and 
treated less harshly.  In regard to the DoD policy on harassment, the Board found no evidence in the record to 
substantiate maltreatment.  However, if the applicant can provide additional documented information to substantiate his 
issues, the applicant should consider exercising his right to make a personal appearance before the Board.  If he should 
choose to exercise his right to a personal appearance hearing, the applicant should be prepared to provide the Board 
with evidence of inequity and any exemplary post-service accomplishments as well as any contributl%s to the 
community. 

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 upgrade or 
change of reason for discharge, thus the applicant’s discharge should not be changed. 

Attachment: 
Examiner’s Brief 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 

ANDREWS AFE3, MD 

FD-01-00027 

(Former A1C) 

1.  MATTER UNDER REVIEW:  Appl rec’d a GEN Disch fr USAF 98/03/10 UP AFI 36-3208, 
para  5.49 (Misconduct -  Minor Disciplinary Infractions).  Appeals for Honorable 
Disch and to Change the Reason and Authority for Disch. 

2.  BACKGROUND: 

a. DOB: 77/09/26.  Enlmt Age: 17 10/12.  Disch Age: 20 5/12. Educ:HS DIPL. 
AFQT: N/A.  A-54,  E-67,  G-59,  M-51. PAFSC: 2A632 - Aerospace Ground Equipment 
Apprentice. DAS: -95/06/05. 

b.  Prior Sv: AFRes 95/07/27 -  95/08/30 (1 month 4 days) (Inactive). 

3.  SERVICE UNDER REVIEW: 

a. 

b. 

C. 

d. 

e .  

Enld as A1C 95/08/31 for 4 yrs.  Svd: 2 Yrs 6 Mo 10 Das, all AMs. 
Grade Status:  none. 

Time Lost:  none. 

Art 15‘s:  (1) 98/02/05, Hill AFB, UT - Article 86.  You did, o/a 23 

* 

Jan 98, w/o authority, fail to go at the time prescribed 
to your appointed place of duty.  Rdn to Amn  (susp til 
4 Aug  98), and a reprimand.  (No appeal)  (No mitigation) 

Additional: LOR, 29 JAN 98 -  Bad check. 

LOR, 17 OCT 97 -  Late f o r   duty. 
LOC, 13 OCT 97 -  Late for duty. 
LOR, 04 SEP 97 -  Carrying a concealed weapon. 
LOR, 25 SEP 96 -  Dereliction of duty. 

? 

f. 

CM:  none. 

4. 

_- 

Record of  SV: 95/08/31  97/04/29  Hill AFB  2  (Initial)  = ’  

(Discharged from Hill AFB) 

-  _- 

- 

I 

h. 

AwaFds &  Decs:  NDSM, AFEM, AFTR. 

i. 

Stmt of Sv:  TMS:  (2) Yrs  (7) Mos  (14) Das 
TAMS:  (2) Yrs  (6) Mos  (10) Das 

4.  BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW:  Appln  (DD E’m  293) dtd 00/12/17. 

(Change Discharge to Honorable and Change theReason and Authority for 

Discharge) 

Issue 1:  My discharge was improper due to inaccurate and contrasting 

ratings on my EPR, my EPR rating was used in the discharge proceedings. 

E'DOl-00027 

.__ 

Issue 2:  My discharge was inequitable because I know of two airmen who were 

-- 
in a similar sitKtion and status who eventually recieved (sic) honorable 
discharges because their chain of command made sure they recieved  (sTc) help for 
their problems that interfered with their duties. 

Issue 3 :   My discharge was inequitable because of the new DOD policy on 

maltreatment and harrassment.  My verbal complaints to my chain of command and 
my written one would not have been ignored which would have made a dramatic 
difference in the outcome of my career.  For any additional concerns please 
refer to document 2. 

ATCH 
1. Character Reference. 
2. Applicant's Statement to the Discharge Review Board. 

01/01/24/ia 

Greetings, Discharge Review Board Member(s) 

_I_ 

_- 

-- 

- 
- 
After you reviewed my  file you may have had the impression that I was not interested in preserving my 
military weer, I was a waste of the Air Force’s time, I got what I deserved. It would have seemed wise to 
limit my training, time spent mentoring me and devote it to other “deserving” airmen because in your 
personal experience airmen like me don‘t change so it is a waste of time to try and get involved or refer me 
to an on base agency because it looks like I am going to get discharged anyway. I agree that it may be easy 
to feel that way but it violates standards for mentoring and leadership according to AFP 36-2241. 
(paragrajh 5.3.3.1.3, 5.3.3.1.11. 5.3.3.3.2, 5.3.3.4.3, 6.6.3.2 and 10.4.7.1.3.). The fact is I had personal 
and emotional problems, my supervisor(s) and commander knew about it but did not take steps to intervene 
or refer me to the proper agencies in order to help me. My supervisor has even made a written statement 
which is a part of my permanent record about what attributed to my turbulent career in the Air Force 
highlighting the fact that my personal problems got in the way of my duty performance. If my commander 
was not aware of my personal problems before the day he started my discharge proceedings, then he knew 
when my supervisor and I both submitted documents pointing out the subject and he ignored  them both and 
still moved for discharge without even making an inquiry to see if1 had received help from Family Advocacy 
or Mental Health prior to these proceedings. (Violation o f p a a p p h  5.3.3.3.2 evidenced by hck of 
supporting paperwork in my personnelfile, it should have become a permanent part of my file and would 
be a very important document showing that they mQde eflbrt to mentor and reach aut to me which they drd 
not. Because I had a UIF opened at the time thut document or agreement would have had to be 
documented a~pvmfto clear them of responsibility for failure to lead but there is no document or 
conversation ofthat nature documented) My chain of command just attacked the symptoms of my 
depression with paperwork, they failed to mentor and guide me when I needed their help.  I was scared, 
confused and I did not know a lot about what on-base agencies I had access to but they knew because it was 
theirjob to know m r d i n g  to 39-2241 Paragraph 5.3.3.1.3 and to do what they were called to do in that 
situationaccordingtoParagraph5.3.3.3.2and5.3 3.4.3, 5.3.4.5.2and5.3.4.5.5 (SupportedbySSGT 
statement about my emotional problems and how they integered with me perjorming the 

mission but lacking was information on how he got inwlwd or referred me to mental health) Because of 
their failure to assist me,  I selfdestructed and eventually got discharged. This was a grossly negligent and 
very unfortunate situation which was placed in my lap and I was not provided a sincere opportunity to excel 
and flourish by my career being handled in an unethical and biased way through, inaccurate ratings and the 
denial of sufficient w e e r  enrichng opportunities comparable to my skill level. This is NOT acceptable 
conduct for Non-Commissioned Officers in a supervisory role according to AFP 36-2241 chapters 5.3,3.1.3, 
5.3.3.1.1 1, I will go into greater detail below. My ratings were “low-balled” as proof of my general 
competence I have a letter from my employer on my duty performance that shows I am a quality C a l i  
individual. Every area that I was rated for on my EPR received exaggeratedly low scores that were all 
somehow related to my Letters of Counseling and Reprimand according to my supervisor when I c o & ~ t e d  
him about it. I was never reprimanded for poor duty performance which did not reflect accurately in my 
EPR. I was excl&kd  from receiving awards even though I had often out performed my  co-workers 2 times 
for the menth and the quarter by quality and quantity. I feel that if I had received an award or got an EPR 
that was more realistic then it would have been a harder case to make to discharge me.  Some of the 
documents that are in my discharge package are based on testimony that is on a lie. I made verbal complaints 
to my supervisor and First Sergeant, mentioned it an LOR rebuttal and also had witnesses willing to make a 
statement to confirm my claims but they were never investigated. I was hesitant to file a Inspector general 
report due to reprisal. I was walking a fine line trying to salvage my career and if I got my chain of command 
investigated I was told by my supervisor at the time it would hurt meiirthe long run and the Inspector 
General wouldn’t believe me anyway because of my record. 

- 

__ 

self-destruct from my acknowledged personal and emotional problems (in SSGT 
iimi Ze//er) and discharge whatever was left was a waste-ofmoney‘ and time, when with 

just as much effort, they could have mentored me and saved the Air Force thousands of wasted dollars in 
training ail because they did not want to get involved. Though I am not able topmvwhry theyneglected to- 
mentor me and help me to get on the right track I can prove that they did not set up an infrastructure and 
guide me on how to turn my career around, something that important would have been documented. It is a 
supervisors and/or commanders choice how they will enforce rules but not whether to abide by them or not. 
If the basic procedures were followed in the guidelines for NCO leadership found in AFP 36-2241,Lwmld 
have been r e f m x o  the proper on-base agency, with their help I would have been able to work out my 
problems on the job and I would have been able to get my  career back on track. I “fell” in a sense, and - 
needed help to stand up. My chain of command kicked me while I was down and gave me letters of 
counseling for not being able to perform when the same “you don‘t need help, puU yourself up by your 
bootstraps”  mentality was not applied to other airmen in my  work center who needed help. The articles for 
recognizing depression in AFP 36-2241were written for airmen in my situation with my problems, if there 
were no such airmen and the Air Force did not want to see them helped and rehabilitated then there would 
be no use for those chapters.  I am not implying that I did not deserve to be reprimanded for my actions 
because I did deserve to be reprimanded but if I was helped the reprimands would have eventually stopped. 
As I matured, under the guidance of a supervisor complying with Air Force policies, the reprimands would 
have faded away when compared with my  accomplkhmem and I would have become a productive member 
as the two other airmen I have described below did that were in my situation. 

My Letters of Reprimand and Letters of Counseling are written as if my supervisofls)  and commander 
really put some effort forward and helped me to get on my feet and I just continued to mess up. There is NO 
documentation stating anything of that nature besides threats written into my Letters of Reprimand. They 
were just there when I messed up otherwise I got ignored. As an airman I was responsible for my conduct so 
with neglecting my responsibilities came a consequence but as Leaders my chain of command had a 
responsibility to make sure that I was being treated equitably, being trained and had the opportunities to 
grow in my Air Force Specialty. If these things had been done I would still be in uniform sefving my coun&y 
now. I would have matured and moved on to be more of an asset to the Air Force. Other airmen were 
afforded that chance but I was not though I was entitled to it  I am looking for an upgrade to “involuntary 
convenience of the government” characterization and an Honorable Discharge and change my re-enlistment 
code to 3K according to AFI 36-2606 and all appiicable designators so that I may continue to serve.  My 
country. Following is an itemized list of upgrade issues that can also be found on the DD form 293. 
-Inaccurate EPR mtinns and the unethical nsc of those ratinns in mv dischame ~roeeedinns, upgrade 
on the basis of propriety. On my EPR I was scored Sow for things that it is shown I deserve a much higher 
rating for. I was not assigned suffiaent career-progressive tasks by my supervisor though I fiequently made 
inquiries and even a complaint as part of an Lett&- of Reprimand because there was no action taken. On 
occasion I was taken out to equipment and tasked with a progressive task or maintenance action and I 
demonstrated my competency. If you have access my training record you can see the documentations about 
my abilities as M apprentice and how my work and job knowledge was impressive.  On my  EPR it shows 
that I have mediocre skills and duty Wommnce as a mechanic’s apprentice when I am trained for andable 
to perform ajoumeyman’s work (due  to the amount of training objedives I achieved to receive my 
-. 
- 
Journeyman rating and the only reason that I did not was because of my pending UIF and advanced 
Jou- 
schools that I attended) which was annotated in my training record, I never was reprimanded 
for substandard work and I had met all but a few of the training criteria for promotion to a journeyman. I 
also subGtted 25-30 items out of a longer list that my supervisor helped me to pick ouf and demanded that 
they be verifiable. Out of the 25-30 items, there were only a few weakly written bullets on my EPR that 
generalizsd the whole list that I had put together.  I was also given my  EPR when we were TDY on a 
training deployment during the spring of 1997 in El Paw Texas and I was not afforded the MI amount of 
allotted time to pursue a rebuttal for my EPR and it’s referral. Two days after I received my EPR we were 
still in our detached location off base and I had no access to legal c o d .  The first duty day I had to pursue 
legal counsel was actually the fourth day (a Monday) of my allotted time to provide rebuttal but I could not 

--__ 

get an appointment with the Legal office d e r  I had gathered proof and put together a rebuttal in the next 
following days. I told my supervisor about it and we talked with the issuing authority on Thursday 
approximately 2:3Opm and I explained to him what happened and why I needed more time but he told me he 
would not grant me an extension because he felt I hada sufficient mount of time tu prepare a rebuttal. I 
recently looked at my EPR and see that he did  not even record our conversation. I could be trusted to do 
work without supervision as noted in the letter from my employer and from annotations in my training 
record. I was denied the opportunities to attempt more intellectually challenging tasks and left months at a 
time without a trainer and then I would have a trainer for a only a week and we would rush thoughonths 
of training, bacliXating training objectives just so  it would look good on paper though my co-workershad a 
regular assigned trainer who worked with them almost everyday. This is relevant because it resulted in a low 
rating on my EPR and my EPR was used in the discharge proceedings. I was rated in the lower half of the 
Air Force in duty performance but my Career Development Pre Test and offiaal Test Scores (in my 
personnel file), training evaluations (in my training record) and job knowledge (in my training record) was in 
the top loth percentile for airmen in my career field (I scored a 97 on my pre-test and a 89 on my final 
Career Development test). I was not given the same opportunities to try challenging  maintenance and 
troubleshooting operations.  I had to study the technical order manuals to get up to speed on the things that 
I was supposed to learn when I was with my  trainer or supervisor cramming 4 months of training into five 
days while my co-workers got regular hands on training with trips to the flight line to train with other 
mechanics and I would frequently be the only airman left in the shop answering the phones, mopping the 
Boor, cutting the grass or doing very basic maintenance I had already mastered. I was being treated like a 
criminal or like I was in Correctional Custody. Even though I was not afforded the same hands on training 
with a trainer I was viewed as an airman who was knowledgeable and I was tasked with training the new 
airmen coming in on our equipment because I had the initiative to learn on my own. I received verbal praise 
from my peers and a written statement from 
supervisor(s) but that praise never made it to my EPR. I was chosen for 2 advanced  schools that few in my 
career field got to attend, I went on deployments to Nevada and was hand picked to go to Kuwait because 
of my job knowledge and I was the only apprentice out of  8 apprentices in my work center who my chain of 
command felt would perform the best when it counted because this was a real-world operation. Everyone 
fiorn my shop who went was a Craftsman or Journeyman which shows how well I was though of when it 
came to job knowledge. Even though I had potential ( t h t  my m-rvisor is ducumented as saying in the 
it shows by my record I was being groomed for discharge while my co- 
Ietterfiom 
success. As early as 18 months before my discharge my chain of command 
workers ww-r 
stopped investing tihe and energy on fiuthering my  career which had a very large impact on how my career 
could have turned out (as stated in my LOR rebuttaI which is a violation ofparagrqh 5.3.3. I .  11 in AFP 
36-2241) even though I was easy to work with (comments in the Ietterfiom militaqv supervisor md co- 
workers), had the mechanical aptitude (based on my ASVAB scores) and was very willii to learn (as 
witnessed in the amount of training and schooling I completed) so there was no reason to get a rating as low 
as I had. 

and occasional verbal praise fiom my 

- 

_- 

-There are airmen with a record similar to mine but thev were meutored and are still in the Air 
Force, upgrade on the basis of equity. As I understand, if it is shown that an airman or ainnen in my & 
have a similar record and got a different discharge then it will show bias in application of Air Force  -_ 
procedures. These two airmen Stationed at s e e t e  installations were AI C apprentices like I was, had a 
. 
similar amount of counseling sessions, they had a control roster a d o r  an Unfavorable Information File 
opened up on them and they both had an Article 15 like I did. Right now with the help of their respective 
supervisors they have gotten past thek immaturity and have become productive members of the Air Fbrce 
thanks to direct involvement, their referral to mental health and or the family service center and outline a 
program tahelp them turn their financial and emotional problems around. They are both Senior Airmen now 
and have re-enlisted and gotten orders to their next duty station. The first airman’s name is 
and 
he was stationed at the 932nd Air Control Squadron, on NAS Keflavik Iceland working as 
technician and has re-enlisted and recently got orders to Germany. The second airman’s name is ^__ILy 
he worked as a mechanic for a fighter squadron. I 
from his supervisor(s) helped 
and how the &rt 

~ 

-With this new Zero-Tolerance Policv for maltreatment and harassment bv the DOD none of this 
would have continued, upgrade on the basis of equity. When I disclosed my concerns to the First Sergeant 
or when the commander read my comments that I made in my LOR rebuttal referring to being treated 
unfkirtyhe could have taken serious action instead verbally counseling those NCOs which wound up coming 
back to me much worse and encouraged me to be quiet. Most of the petty counseling sessions were not 
added to my discharge file or even my personnel file after I was discharged but it existed at the time of my 
military service and 

was the basis for the severity of the fbture actions that resulted in my discharge,-- 

~ 

_- 

Instructions applicable to this case under AFT  39-2241 

Paragraph 5.3.3.1.3  General NCO Responsibilities 

Develop and maintain a though understanding of Air Force leadership and supervisory techniques and 
apply these techniques to support mission ob&ctiws. 

Paragraph 5.3.3.1.11 
Actively support the Air Force ’s policy of  “zero tolerance ”for discrimination and sexual harassment. You 
must create  an environment@ee of any behaviors that hinderper$ormance- one that allows each member 
to achieve his or her fill potential and maximizes his or her contributions. 

Paragraph 5.3.3.3.2  Self-Invohement and Assistance 

Resolve personal problems by direct assistimce or refewal io appropriate agencies. 

Senior NCO Role and Use 

Paragraph 5.3.3.4.3 
Must be alert to detect adverse morale trench and provi& feedback to commanders, Jirst sergeants, 
immediate supervisors, oflcers and -8chiefi.  lhy mast &vote toul e8h-t in resolving the causes of any 
problem before it becomes a major issue and adversely impxts readiness 

Paragraph 5.3.4.5.2  Specific NCO Responsibilities 

/

I

 

Remaining alert to detecting adverse morale trank and initiating corrective action within their control and 
providing the appropriate feedback to those W h t e d  over them, 

Paragraph 5.3.4.5.5 

- _- - _  
Ensuring people are treated fairly by all on- and off duty agencies and initiating corrective action in any 
i n s m e  which violates this principle. 

-- 

- 

Paragraph 6.6.3.2 AttitudesICompassion and Understanding 
Compassion and unrderstmniing are extremely impormit. lhe human p w h e  bruises easily and most 
subordinates wilt withhold their feelings, open to the point of distress. ... 

- 

Paragraph 10.4.7.1.3  Discipline 
Along these same lines, fair and equitable punishment for military members depends on a clear 
understanding of the oflendkr and the circumstances surrounding the oflense. 

- 
_- 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS OGDEN AIR LOGISTICS CENTER (AFMC) 

HILL AIR FORCE BASE, UTAH 

II- 

- 

MEMORANDUM FOR 75 ABW/CC 

- 

FROM:  00-ALC/JA 

SUBJECT:  Legal Review - Admi 
36-3208, Paragraph 5.4 

?  3  FFB  id33 

-- 

- 

1.  Basis  for  Action.  On  13  February  1998,  the  Commander,  729th Air  Control 
Squadron, notified the Respondent that he was recommending his discharge &om the Air 
Force for minor disciplinary infractions, under AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, Paragraph 
5.49.  The Commander recommended a general discharge.  This case is being processed 
by the notification procedure and the characterization range is honorable through General 
Under  Honorable Conditions. 

2.  Evidence  for  the  Commander.  The  evidence  supporting  the  Commander's 
recommendation consists of the following: 

a.  On or about 23 January 1998, the Respondent failed to go at the time prescribed 
to his appointed place of duty.  For this he received an Article 15.  His punishment was 
reduction to the grade of airman (suspended). (Atch 1 a) 

b.  On  ;r 

about  17 December  1997, the  Respondent  wrote  a  check  to  the  20& 
Comptroller Squadron, Shaw AFB. The check did not clear the Respondent's bank due 
to insufficient funds.  For this he received a letter of reprimand.  (Atch 1 b) 

c.  On  or about  16 October  1997, the Respondent failed to  report  for duty at the 
prescribed time for a scheduled clean-up detail.  He was approximately 1 hour late.  This 
was the third incident in one week. For this he received a Letter of Reprimand.  (Atch IC) 
d.  On of about  13 October 1997, the Respondent reported late for duty.-=-He was 
approximately  1 hour  late.  This  was the  second  time  in  one week,  despite a Yerba1 
counseling on - 10 October 1997.  For this he received a Letter of Counseling.  (Atqh-ld) 

* 

- e.  On or about  17 August  1997, the Respondent was ap6ehended for carrying a 
concealed  weapon  in  his  vehicle  and  failing  to  register  this  weapon  on  base.  The 
Respondent also admitted that he was aware of the fact that he was required to store all 
weapons at the 75 SFS armory.  For this he received a Letter of Reprimand.  (Atch le) 

f.  On or about 19 September 1996, the Respondentfailed to use the proper safety 

equipment in the performance of his duties, even after given specific orders to do so.  The 

_- 

Respondent was required to wear the proper protective gear before he began equipment- 
washing operations. (Atch 1 f )  

3.  Evidence for the Respondent.  The Respondent consulted counsel and has submitted 
statements  on  his  behalf. 
The  Respondent  is  requesting  that  his  discharge 
characterization  be  honorable.  Statements  from  other  individuals  have  also  been 
submitted.  W c h  4) 

- 

4.  Errors or Irregularities.  None 

5.  Discussion.  Under AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, Paragraph 5.49, an airman may 
be  administratively  discharged  in  the  current  enlistment  for  minor  disciplinary 
infractions.  The Respondent was given many opportunities to correct his behavior and 
did not.  These actions clearly show a responsibility level below the standards required of 
airmen in the Air Force. 

6.  Options.  As SPCM authority, you have the following options: 

a.  Direct retention and order the action terminated. 

b.  Recommend to  the GCM  authority that he  discharge the Respondent with  an 

honorable discharge characterization with or without P & R. 

c. Order that the Respondent be discharged with a general discharge characterization, 

with or without P & R. 

7.  Recommehdation.  We recommend that you order the Respondent’s separation from 
the Air Force with  a general discharge without P  & Rqnder AFI  36-3208, paragraph 

Attachment 
Case File 

Chief, Mi1itaV’bi-d Civil Affairs Division 

- 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

729'h AIR CONTROL SQUADRON (ACC) 

HILL AIR FORCE BASE, UTAH 

MEMORANDUM FO 

SUBJECT:  Notification Letter 

1.  I am recommending your discharge from the United States Air Force for minor 
disciplinary infractions. The authority for this action is AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, 
paragraph 5.49.  If my recommendation is approved, your service will be characterized as 
honorable or general.  I am recommending that your service be characterized as general. 

2.  My reasons for this action are: 

a.  On or about 23 January 1998, you failed to go at the time prescribed to your 
appointed place of duty.  For this you received an Article 15, dated 29 January 1998. 
Your .punishment was reduction to the grade of Airman (suspended).  (Atch 1 a) 

b.  On or about 17 December 1997, you wrote a check to the 20"' Comptroller 
Squadron, Shaw AFB.  The check did not clear your bank because of insufficient 
hnds.  For this you received a Letter of Reprimand, dated 29 January 1998. 
(Atch lb) 

.) 

c.  On or about 16 October 1997, you failed to report for duty at 0715 for a scheduled 
clean-up detail, you were approximately 1 hour late.  This was the third incident in 
one week.  For this you received a Letter of Reprimand, dated 17 October 1997. 
(Atch IC) 

d.  On or about 13 October 1997, you reported late for duty.  You were approximately 
1 hour late.  This was the second time in one week, despite a verbal cbunseling on 
10 October 1997.  For this you received a Letter of Counseling, dtd 13 October 1997. 
- -  
(Atch Id) 
-
- 
e.  On oT-about  17 August 1997, you were apprehended for carrying a conceald 
- 
weapon in your vehicle and failing to register this weapon on base.  You also 
a d m i t w o u  were aware that you were required to store all weapons at the 75 SFS 
armory.  For this you received a Letter of Reprimand, dated 4 September 1997. 
(Atch le) 

-

 

f.  On or about 19 September 1996, you failed to usehe proper safety equipment in 
the performance of yom duties, even after being given specific orders to do so.  You 

- 

_- 

_- 

.rua\-- 

..  =.  . 

~ 

~‘ 
I
.

 

were to wear the proper protective gear before you began equipment washing 
operations.  This could have caused permanent injury to your eyes.  For this you 
received a Letter of Reprimand, dated 25 September 1996. (Atch If) 

Copies of the documents to be forwarded to the separation authority in support of this 
recommendation are attached.  The commander exercising SPCM jurisdiction, or a higher 
authority, willdecide whether you will be discharged or retained in the Air Force,  ff you 
are discharged, you will be ineligible for reenlistment in the Air Force. 

- 

3.  You have the right to consult counsel.  I have made an appointment for you with the 
Area Defense Counsel’s Office, Building 1205,  17 Fib48  at  I oL>G  . 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 by&  & bq g , unless you 
request and receive an extension for good cause shown.  I will send them 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. 
6.  Your medical examinationheview has been scheduled for -_ 17 Ff.bq8  at  la, 
in the Physical Exams Section. 

P 

7.  Any persona1,information you furnish in rebuttal is covered by the Privacy Act of 
1974.  A copy of AFI 36-3208 is available for your use in the unit orderly room. 

t 

Attachments: 
1.  Notification Letter 
la.  Article 15, dtd 29 Jan 98 
b.  Letter of Reprimand, dtd 29 Jan 98/Notification of Dishonored Check, dtd 

- _ _  

. 

17 Dec 97 

c.  LetteraReprimand, dtd 17 Oct 97/Response, dtd 20 Oct 97 
d.  Letter of Counseling, dtd 13 Oct 97 
e.-  EeKemeprimand, dtd 4 Sep 97 
f.  Letter of Reprimand, dtd 25 Sep 96/Statements, dtd 23 Sep 97 & 30 Sep 96 
2.  Airman’s Receipt of Notification Letter 

I -

 

-