AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE 

CASE NUMBER 
FD01-00029 

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

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

FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge is denied. 

The Board finds that neither evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity 
or impropriety that would &ti@  a change of discharge. 

c 

The Board finds that the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, 
and, after a thorough review of the records, the Board was able to identifl none.  The applicant served 2 
years and 9 months on active duty during which he received  1 Memorandum for Record, 5 Reports of 
Individual Counseling, and 5 Letters of Reprimand for various acts of misconduct and unsatisfactory 
performance.  The Board opined that through these administrative actions the applicant had ample 
opportunities to change his negativdrepetitive behavior.  The many offenses of the applicant, although 
minor in nature when analyzed individually, amounted to an overall serious problem that could not be 
tolerated.  The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from the conduct expected of 
all military members. 

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 krther concludes that there exists no legal or equitable 
basis for upgrade of 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  AFB, MD 

E'D-01-00029 

(Former A 1 C )  

1.  MATTER UNDER REVIEW:  Appl rec'd  a GEN Disch fr USAF 0 0 / 0 4 / 2 5   UP AFI 36- 3208, 
para 5 . 2 6 . 1   &  5 . 2 6 . 3   (Unsatisfactory Performance).  Appeals for Honorable Disch. 

2.  BACKGROUND: c 

a. DOB: 7 8 / 0 9 / 1 9 .  

Enlmt Age: 1 8   8 / 1 2 .   Disc6 Age: 2 1   7 / 1 2 .   Educ:HS DIPL. 

AFQT: N/A.  A- 83,  E- 78,  G-76,  M-64. PAFSC: 2A631C  -  Aerospace Propulsion 
Apprentice. DAS: 9 7 / 1 1 / 2 5 .  

b.  Prior Sv: AFRes 9 7 / 0 5 / 2 8   -  9 7 / 0 7 / 1 5   (1 month 1 8   days)(Inactive). 

3.  SERVICE UNDER REVIEW: 

a.  Enld as AB 9 7 / 0 7 / 1 6   for 4 yrs.  Svd: 2  Yrs 9  Mo  1 0   Das, all AMs. 

b.  Grade Status:  A1C -  9 8 / 1 1 / 1 6  

AMN-(EPR Indicates): 9 7 / 0 7 / 1 6 - 9 9 / 0 3 / 1 5  

c.  Time Lost:  none. 

w 

d.  Art 15's:  none. 

e.  Additional: RIC, 
RIC, 
MFR, 
RIC, 
RIC, 
RIC, 
LOR , 

0 5   AUG 98  - Adapting to military standards. 
1 7   AUG 98  -  Unsatisfactory Performance. 
0 3   SEP 98  -  Late for work. 
1 8   MAR 99  -  Failure to meet military standards. 
22  APR 99  -  Failure to follow instructions. 
1 9   JUL 99  -  Irresponsible/Poor control of government 
0 9   AUG 99  -  Failure to maintain military bearing and 
irresponsible/poor control of government 
property. 

property. 

LOR, 
LOR , 
LOR , 

0 5   NOV  99  - Missed appointment. 
10 MAR  00 -  Failure to obey orders. 
31  JAN 00 -  Failure to obey orders &  disrespect to a 

noncommissioned officer. 

f.  CM:  none. 

g .   Record of SV: 9 7 / 0 7 / 1 6  
9 9 / 0 3 / 1 6  

9 9 / 0 3 / 1 5   Travis AFB  4 
0 0 / 0 3 / 0 1   Travis AFB  2 

(Discharged from Travis AFB) 

(Initial) 
(Cmdr Dir) 

h .   Awards &  Decs:  AFTR, AFOUA W/1 DEV. 

i.  Stmt of Sv:  TMS:  (2) Yrs  (10) Mos  (28) Das 
TAMS:  (2) Yrs  (9) Mos  (10) Das 

4 .   WASIS  ADVANCED  FOR-REVIEW:  Appln  (DD kn 293) dtd  00/12/17. 

(Change Discharge to Honorable) 

FDO1-00029 

NO  ISSUES SUBMITTED. 

ATCH 
none. 

c 

. 

01/01/25/ia 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS 60TH AIR MOBILITY WING (AMC) 

MEMORANDUM FOR 

/ c c  

FROM:  60 AMW/JA 

5 10 Mulheron Street 
Travis AFB CA 94535-2406 

1 9  APR  2000 

36-3208, 

1.  Initiation of Action:  I have reviewed the above-referenced action pertaining t 
(Respondent)  and  I  find  it  legally  sufficient to  support the recommended  discharge  action.  On 
4 Apr 00,  660 AGS/CC  initiated separation  action against Respondent  pursuant  to  AFI 36-3208, 
paragraphs 5.26.1  and  5.26.3,  for Unsatisfactory Duty  Performance: Failure to  Perform  Assigned 
Duties  Properly,  and  Failure  to  Progress  in  On-the-Job  Training  (OJT).  The  660 AGWCC 
recommended  a  general  discharge  characterization  without  probation  and  rehabilitation,  and 
60 LG/CC concurred.  This 21-year-old respondent has 32 months of active service and 2 EPRs with 
overall ratings of 2 (referral) and 4.  He has been awarded the Air Force Training Ribbon and Air 
Force Outstanding Unit Award (one device).  A detailed summary of his personal data is contained 
in paragraph 2 of the Commander’s Recommendation for Discharge letter, dated  17 Apr 00.  After 
conferring with counsel, Respondent submitted a statement, including 4 character-reference letters, 
7 letters of appreciation, a performance feedback worksheet, and a quality assessment worksheet.  In 
his  statement  of 6 Apr  00, Respondent  seeks retention  in  the  Air Force  or  in the alternative, an 
honorable  service  characterization  in  order  to  preserve  his  Montgomery  G.I.  Bill  (MGIB) 
educational entitlements (Tab3). 

2.  Basis for Discharge:  Airmen  are subject to discharge under AFI  36-3208, paragraphs 5.26.1 
and 5.26.3 based on a documented failure to meet Air Force standards.  The specific incidents are as 
follows: 

a.  Unsatisfactory  Duty  Performance,  Failure 

Paragraph 5.26.1 : 

to  Perform  Assigned  Duties  Properly, 

rmitted Respondent to take a Mend to the 
(1)  On or about 4 Aug 98, 
espondent’s work was completed and that he 
airport during 2330 to 0730 mi 
understood he was to report to the flight chiefs promptly in the morning.  Respondent failed to return 
to work immediately following his trip to the airport, as instructed.  Respondent never mentioned to 
Jose until later that evening.  Although Respondent was 
never  intended  for  him  to  be  away  for 
he would be  late.  Later, Respondent told 

Respondent never in 
that I probably won’t be coming back,” which was untrue.  For failing to ret 
“I told= 
as instructed, Respondent received a record of individual counseling (RIC) on 5 Aug 98. 

(2)  On or about  11 Mar 99, Respondent failed to retudclear a Swiss files tool with Tool Crib. 
He  was  verbally  counseled previously for  not  turning  idclearing  all  outstanding tools  under  his 
employee account number. 

(3) On or about  11 Mar 99, Respondent lost a technical order (T.O.),  but insisted it was not at 
COMBS, where  he was working.  A  lost tool  report was  accomplished and  his  shift supervisor, 
SSgt -was 
left responsible to recover, resolve, and/or to locate the lost item.  When asked if 
he had the T.O. with him while he was working at COMB’S on the spare engine, he stated, “No, I did 
not have the T.O.  there when I was pulling blades, I swear it was on the bobtail.”  When told to go 
back and look for it again, Respondent questioned his supervisor by  saying, “what for, I’ve already 
checked there,Ys not there.”  When told to go back and to check anyway, he muttered, “whatever.” 
Respondent just  admitted to  his  supervisors that  he  failed to  use  required  T.O’s while  working 
maintenance.  The lost item was eventually recovered from a s)are  engine, two spots from where 
Respondent was working. 

(4)  On or about 16 Mar 99, Respondent was tasked 
6AE thrust  reverse blocker doors on Aircraft  83-008 
started calling the specialist expediter, Phoenix 7, over the radio to pick him up. 
Respondent to remain at the aircraft and to continue 
was told again to remain at the aircraft, Respondent began arguing 
saying “I don’t want to talk to you, I want to talk to Phoenix 7.”  This was one of the instances where 
Respondent used the radio to exhibit disrespect and lack of discipline to his superiors and trainers. 

to install cotter pins on 

(5) On or abouc 16 Mar 99, after Respondent was told b 

o install cotter pins on 
isted the pins given to 
6EA thrust reverse blocker doors, he was reluctant 
ey  were  correct  according  to 
him  would  not 
pins, he was able to fit them into 
T.O. 2-78.  After 
te the work, as instructed.  He was again told to 
the bolts.  Respon 
re-inspected Respondent’s work, he found the pins were  not 
install the pins.  Afte 
completely installed and secured.  The excess was not snipped and bent down according to standard 
general practice procedures.  Moreover, he found blocker door nuts only hand tight, and one each 
connection link bolt not installed.  Respondent knowingly rendered an aircraft unsafe and passed it 
off as job completed in a hasty effort to go home for the day, which was conscious negligence and 
unsafe maintenance on his part. 

(6)  On  17  Mar  99,  Respondent  deliberately  and  knowingly  interrupted 
transmission over the radio several times, after he was clearly and distinctly order 

- - 

(7)  On or about 17 Mar 99, Respondent was told to prep and be 
blade removal from the #3 engine of Aircraft 84-0187.  Instead, he 
the aircraft visiting with crew chiefs and taking a smoke break, whil 
For  failing  to  perform  assigned  duties  properly  in  paragraphs  2a(2)  through  2a(7),  Respondent 
received a letter of counseling on 17 Mar 99. 

(8) On  or about 20  Apr  99 
formed  Respondent  personally  that  he  would  be 
working 12-hour shift during the 
f # 1 Engine on Aircraft #79- 195 1.  He repeated this 
instruction back to  him  to  confirm it.  On  21  Apr  99, Respondent was  informed that the  engine 
ack  in  progress again and he would be  working  12-hour shift. 
inded  him  as well.  Then  Respondent  told  them  he  was  not 
the  day.  For  ignoring orders, Respondent received  a  RIC  on 

22 Apr 99. 

(9)  On  or  about  9  Jul  99,  Respondent  was  specifically instructed to  collect,  inventory,  and 
uipment items he and his shift used prior to going home.  Respondent 
had done everything as instructed and the borescope set wascompleted. 
e engine he was inspecting and found the eyehiewing attachment sitting 
inside the fan case, on the oil cooler.  For his irresponsibility in accounting for government tools, 
Respondent was verbally counseled, as evidenced by a RIC on 19 Jul99. 

(10)  On or about  15 Jul 99, Respondent neglected to accomplish a broken toolbox report.  He 
had tools and other miscellaneous items turned over to your employee account number.  Later, it was 
had  completed  a  broken  tool  report  that  Respondent  should  have 
discovered  th 
roke  the  lock  to  the  toolbox.  The  toolbox  was  turned  over  until 
accomplished 
810,  on top  of the  tailstand 
Respondent  received  it  again on  his  shift.  It wa 
, it  was  left  unattended  and 
during  the  entire  shift.  Since he  was  not  work 
out the  broken  toolbox,  but 
For not properly securing a 

government property, Respondent received a RIC on 19 Jul99. 

. 

(1 1) On or about 23 Jul  99, while performing a main  engine control change on Aircraft #83- 
0080,  Respondent  failed  to  maintain  proper  military  bearing  and  improperly  handled  military 
property by throwing tools in frustration.  Specifically, he became frustrated with the maintenance 
task being performed and began “swearing and yelling” as a result.  Further, he  admitted he may 
have “put down hard” tools used to perform the task.  For his inappropriate conduct, Respondent 
received a letter of reprimand (LOR) on 9 Aug 99. 

(12) On or about 28 Oct 99, Respondent missed a scheduled doctor’s appointment.  He told his 
supervisor about his 0900 doctor’s appointment the previous day.  As a consideration, Respondent 
was releadd at 1700 to ensure his availability for his morning appointment.  For missing his doctor’s 
appointment, Respondent received a LOR on 5 Nov 99. 

spondent was again exceeding the 5-mph speed limits.  When she stopped 
it, he replied, “I was just going 15 mph.”  The speed limit in the area was 

(13) On or about 27 Jan 00, Respondent failed to comply 
three  different  occasions.  First,  she twice  asked Respondent 
spondent had to be told by another indiv 
oticed Respondent was  speeding through 
sly exceeding the 5-mph speed limit. 
reduce  their  speed  in  the  parking  lots. 

- 

efed the entire 

5 mph.  For failing to obey orders and unacceptable conduct, Respondent received a LOR on 10 Mar 
00, with establishment of an unfavorable information file (UIF) on 22  Mar 00. 

b.  Failure to Progress in On-the-Job Training (OJT). DaragraDh 5.26.3. 

(1)  In a memo for record of 17 Aug 98, it was noted that on  17 Aug 98, Respondent was tasked 
to complete the fan lube on #1 engine of Aircraft 83-000078.  After he completed the task, it was 
noticed that the blades and hardware were still wet with  lubricant and lubricant spilled in the area. 
ook Respondent out to the aircraft to clean all the hardwmSbr the fan 
On 18 Aug 98, 
blades and to re-lubricate them.  On  19 Aug 98, Respondent was decertified on fan lubes pending 
further training, as evidenced by AF Form 623a (OJT Training Record Continuation Sheet). 

e 

(2) On  27  Jul  99,  following a  review  of  Respondent’s training  record  and  progress,  it  was 
determined he required hrther training due to these reasons:  (a)  leaving tools/equipment inside of 
engine;  (b)  exhibiting  a  great  degree of difliculty assisting with  task,  and  displaying frustration, 
episodes of rage to his supervisor, by slamming and throwing tools.  The trainer was dissatisfied with 
Respondent’s poor performance, lack of confidence, and motivation.  It was determined that training 
would  resume  until  both  Respondent  and  his  supervisors were  satisfied  and  comfortable  with 
Respondent’s general maintenance practice abilities and competency with performing the task, and 
they should focus closely on his upgrade to 5-skill level. 

(3) Upon  arriving  on  station on  25  Nov  97, Respondent  was  placed  on training  status  code 
(TSC) B (airman receiving 3-skill level experience or in upgrade training (UGT) for the initial award 
of  a  5-skill  level  AFSC).  The  training  section  records  show the  maximum  time  for  anyone  in 
Respondent’s AFSC to be awarded the 5-skill level has been  15 months.  Respondent is currently at 
the  30-month point.  Respondent was decertified  in  various tasks  approximately  18 times,  which 
translated  into  64 out  of  79  core  task  certified  and  62  of  174 workcenter  task  certified.  His 
vocabulary  score of  11.8 and reading  comprehension score of  11.1 during an Air Force Reading 
Abilities Test indicated these were not problem areas.  As 4 Jan 00, Respondent made no progress in 
his UGT.  On 23 Mar 00, it was suggested that Respondent needed tomdke more efforts towards his 
UGT.  Although Respondent was made aware of his deficiencies, he showed no improvement.  With 
these factors in mind, 660 AGS/CC determined Respondent was afforded ample opportunity to meet 
upgrade 5-skill level status.  Despite these efforts, Respondent has not accepted responsibility for his 
5-skill level training.  Because he was decertified on several tasks, 660 AGS/CC opted to withdrew 
Respondent from the 5-skill level upgrade training and placed him in TSC “T” for failure to progress 
in OJT according to AFI 36-2201, Attachment 4. 

3.  Discussion: 

a.  In his statement of 6 Apr 00, Respondent admitted it had been difficult for him to adjust to 
the techniques  of different supervisors,  and that frustration had  been  a problem  for him  in  many 
situations, causing his anger to take over his actions.  He felt many of his difficulties were associated 
with personal problems, the death of his grandfather in  1999 and ex-girlfriend in  1998.  Respondent 
cited the reasons why  it took him  longer to accomplish his 5-skill  level  status.  He contended he 
changed supervisors several times and each supervisor trained in a different way.  Further, there was 
no time for training because none of his co-workers would spend some time on-the-job longer that 

- - 

they  need to.  Moreover, Respondent was never given the self-confidence to  learn the job and to 
prove he could do it.  Finally, Respondent felt like an outcast of the shop.  Respondent also believed 
the  biggest  reason  for  taking  so  long  to  meet  his  upgrade  training was  he  had  no  mechanical 
background like everyone else in the shop.  He thought that once he told his co-workers he had no 
mechanical background, they would work harder to help him learn the job (Tab 3). 

~ 

b.  In  his  statement of  17 Apr  00, 
ting  660 AGS/CC,  does  not 
believe Respondent accurately represent 
s personal misfortunes are the 
underlying  causes  of  Respondent’s poor judgment  and  performance.  Respondent WS provided 
several  opportunities to  accept  help  of  to  overcome  the  situation,  including attending  an  Anger 
Management  Class  to  learn  techniques  to  manage  his  temper.  He  completed  a  reading 
nd was referred for commander-directed  mental health evaluation.  According 
espondent’s lack of initiative and focus was brought to his attention on several 
otated  throughout  his  training  record.  ’Each  time  he  acknowledged  his 
deficiencies, but he  continually refused to adjust.  Respondent was assigned to various trainers in 
order to overcome “personality conflicts,” conflicts actually generated as a result of his poor attitude. 
The unit’s efforts had a short-term benefit, but eventually Respondent’s focus and initiative tapered 
off and his training suffered.  According 
although Respondent presented favorable 
information with his submissions, he lacked this focus on his primary duties (Tab 3). 

c.  Airmen are subject to discharge for unsatisfactory performance based on documented failure 
to  meet  Air  Force  standards.  Further,  airmen  should  be  discharged  when  their  unsatisfactory 
performance or conduct shows they are not qualified for service with the Air Force.  Performance in 
the Air Force includes, but is not limited to, work done as assigned duties, military training, bearing, 
and  behavior.  It ndcessarily includes the  member’s continuing responsibility  for maintaining the 
high  standards  of  personal  behavior  and  conduct  required  of  military  members  at  all  times. 
Continued service in the Air Force is judged on the basis of conduct and ability.  Members must 
meet  required  standards  of  duty,  performance,  and  discipline.  Pursuant  to  A F I   36-2201, 
paragraph 4.14, the  trainee (a) accepts all opportunities for qualijkation and skill-level  UGT and 
actively participate in the  learning process; (b)  gets and maintains knowledge, quallfcations, and 
the  appropriate skill level  within the  assigned specialty; (c) becomes a productive member of  the 
unit team, (d) budgets on-and oflduty time to complete assigned training tasks, particularly CDC 
and  self-training  requirements;  and,  (e)  maintains  progress  within  the  training  program. 
Respondent’s failure to perform assigned duties properly and to meet upgrade training requirements 
support discharge. 

d.  Once convinced that there is a basis for Respondent’s discharge, his entire military record is 
evaluated when deciding whether it is appropriate to discharge him.  Despite the unit’s rehabilitative 
efforts to aid Respondent in improving his conduct and behavior, including extensive involvement in 
UGT, he failed to make the necessary improvements to remain an Air Force member.  Accordingly, 
discharge is appropriate. 

4.  Characterization of Discharge 

a.  The service of airmen discharged under paragraphs 5.26.1  and 5.26.3 will be characterized as 
Respondent  requested  an 

honorable  or  general  pursuant  to  AFI 36-3208,  paragraph 5.28.2. 

- 

honorable  service  characterization  to  be  eligible  for  the  MGIB.  Pursuant  to  AFI  36-3208, 
paragraph 1.22,  MGIB  requires  personnel  entering  active  duty  after  30 Jun  85  to  receive  an 
honorable discharge in order to qualify for educational benefits.  An honorable characterization is 
warranted  if Respondent’s service generally meets Air Force  standards of acceptable conduct and 
performance of duty or whose service has been so meritorious that any other characterization would 
be  clearly  inappropriate.  Such characterization is reserved to those airmen who  served honorably 
and Respondent’s record arguably does not meet this standard.  The 660 AGS/CC recommended a 
general discharge and I agree.  A general discharge, under honorable conditions, is appropriate if an 
airman’s  service- has  been  honest  and  faithful  but  significant  negative  aspects  of -th& airman’s 
conduct  or  performance  of  duty  outweigh  positive  aspects  of  the  airman’s  military  record. 
Respondent’s unsatisfactory duty performance over a  17-month period resulted in  3 RES, a verbal 
counseling,  3ZORs  (one  placed  in  UIF),  and  a  LOC.  The  other  derogatory  information  in 
Respondent’s case file consists of memorandums for tardiness, recurring disagreeable temperament, 
and loss of his restricted area badge.  As reflected by his referrarEPR, the rater noted Respondent’s 
serious problems with  discipline, integrity, military  bearing, and  following orders.  The  indorser 
commented  Respondent  consistently  displays  negative  attitude  and  refuses  all  encouragement, 
counsel, and help.  Given Respondent’s military record of inappropriate conduct and unsatisfactory 
performance  a  general  discharge  is  appropriate.  In  my  opinion,  significant negative  aspects  of 
Respondent’s failure to perform assigned duties properly and failure to progress in OJT outweigh the 
positive  aspects  of  his  service  record.  Accordingly,  I  concur  with  both  commanders’ 
recommendation for a general discharge. 

b.  AFI  36-3208, paragraph 6.45 provides that if the separation authority directs discharge for 
more than one reason, the instrument directing discharge must cite the primary reason.  Although 
Respondent’s failurg to perform assigned  duties properly was  sufficient to warrant his  discharge, 
660 AGS/CC’s recommendation for discharge was a direct result of Respondent’s decertification, 
lack of motivation, and discipline in meeting his 5-skill level status.  For that reason, the primary 
basis for discharge is paragraph 5.26.3, Failure to Progress in OJT. 

5.  Probation and Rehabilitation (P&R): 

a.  P&R is not appropriate.  AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.2 provides that airmen should have an 
opportunity to overcome their deficiencies before discharge action starts.  A commander’s efforts to 
rehabilitate an airman may include formal or informal counseling, control roster action, punishment 
under  Article  15, UCMJ,  a  change  in  duty  assignment,  demotion,  additional  training  or  duty, 
retraining, or other administrative action.  P&R is based on the principle of conditional suspension of 
administrative discharge for cause in deserving cases.  P&R should be offered, when it is reasonably 
possible to do so for those airmen:  (a)  who have demonstrated a potential to serve satisfactorily; 
(b) who have the capacity to be rehabilitated for continued military service or for completion of the 
current enlistment; and, (c)  whose retention on active duty in a probationary status is consistent with 
the maintenance of good order and discipline in the Air Force. 

b.  AFI  36-3208,  paragraph  7.4  provides  that  if  the  reason  for  discharge  is  unsatisfactory 
performance  or  misconduct,  the  case  file must  show that  P&R  was  considered by  the  initiating 
commander,  the  board  members  if  a  hearing  is  involved,  and  the  separation  authority. 
If  the 
initiating  commander  does  not  recommend  P&R,  the  reason  must  be  given.  After  reviewing 

Respondent’s  record,  660 AGS/CC  determined  Respondent  is  not  a  viable  candidate  for  P&R. 
Despite  the  unit’s  rehabilitation  efforts  stated  above,  Respondent’s  behavior  showed  no 
improvement.  As  stated  above, Respondent  was  referred  to  the  Behavioral  Health  Clinic for his 
questionable  behavior  and  inability  to  adapt  to  military  standards.  He  also  attended  an  Anger 
Management  Class.  The  unit’s  implementation  of  an  extensive  OJT  campaign  to  increase 
Respondent’s chances of meeting his 5-skill level training requirement has failed.  Respondent has 
not displayed the requisite desire to  improve himself, either through job performance or OJT.  All 
rehabilitative  efforts to  assist Respondent  in  his  5-skill  level training  have  failed  to  produce  any 
positive change in his behavior.  Respondent’s actions indicate he has no capacity to be rchabilitated 
for completion ofhis current enlistment. 

- *  

6.  Options:  4 s   the  Special  Court-Martial  Convening  Authority,  you  personally  approve  or 
disapprove discharges under AFI 36-3208, paragraphs 5.26.1 and 5.26.3, and your options are to: 

- 

- 

a.  Withdraw this action and retain Respondent, or, 

L 

* 

b.  Discharge Respondent  with  an  honorable or general  discharge with or without  P&R, with 

either paragraph 5.26.1 or 5.26.3 as the primary reason for discharge. 

7.  Recommendation:  Discharge Respondent with  a  general  discharge without  P&R,  by  signing 
the appropriate letter at Attachment 1, utilizing paragraph 5.26.3 as the primary reason for discharge. 
Should you decide to discharge Respondent with an honorable discharge without P&R, an alternate 
letter is also included at Attachment 1. 

. 

Attachments : 
I .   Proposed Letter 
2.  Case File 

. 

,.... 

..I. 

~ 

,,,. - ..... 

,  1 

..., 

~ 

. ., 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

660TH AIRCRAFT GENERATION SQUADRON (AMC) 

MEMORANDUM FOR 

FROM:  660 AGS/CC 

585 Hickam Avenue 
Travis AFB CA 94535-2726 

SUBJECT:  F&otification Memorandum 

1.  I am recommending your discharge from the United StateiAir Force for Unsatisfactory Duty 
Performance:  Failure to  Perfom Assigned Duties Properly and Failure to Progress in On-the- 
Job Training (OJT).  The authority for this action is AFI 36-3208, paragraphs 5.26.1  and 5.26.3, 
respectively.  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.  Unsatisfactory  Duty  Performance,  Failure  to  Perform  Assigned  Duties  Properly, 

Paragraph 5.26.1 : 

(1) On or about 4 Aug 98, your superviso 
ave you permission to take 
0), provided your work was 
a friend to the airport during your duty hour 
completed with  the understanding that you  were to  report to  the flight chiefs promptly in the 
morning.  Further, you were instructed to return to wo 
owing your trip to the 
airport, which you failed to do.  You never mentioned t 
at you were going to 
San Jose until later that evening.  Although he gave yo 
intended for you to 
u never informed the unit that you would be late.  Later, you told 
at  I probably  won’t  be  coming back,”  which was  untrue.  SSgt 
u the military standards according to AFPAM 36-2241.  For failing 
to retuin to duty, as instructed, you received a record of individual counseling (m) on 5 Aug 98 
(Atch 1, Tab 1). 

- 

(2) On or about 11 Mar 99, you failed to returdclear a Swiss files tool with Tool Crib.  You 
were verbally  counseled previously for not turning idclearing all outstanding tools under your 
employee account number (Atch 2, Tab 1). 

(3) On  or about  11 Mar  99,  you  lost  a  technical  order  (T.O.),  but  insisted  it  was  not  at 
re  working.  A  lost  tool  report  was  accomplished  and  your  shift 
was left responsible to recover, resolve, and/or to locate the lost item. 
When  asked  if you had  the T.O.  with  you  while you  were  working at  COMB’S on the  spare 
engine, you stated, “No, I did not have the T.O. there when I was pulling blades, I swear it was 
on the bobtail.”  When told by your supervisor to go back  and look for it again, you questioned 

him by saying, “what for, I’ve already checked there, it’s not there.”  When told to go back and 
to  check  anyway, you  muttered, “whatever.”  You just  admitted to  your  supervisors that  you 
failed  to  use  required  T.O.’s  while  working  maintenance.  Eventually,  the  lost  item  was 
recovered from a spare engine, two spots from where you were working (Atch 2, Tab 1). 

tasked you to install cotter pins on 6AE thrust 
ediately after he  left the  aircraft,  you  started 

(4) On or about 16 Mar 99 
reverse blocker doors on Airc 
calling the specialist expediter, Phoenix 7, over the radi 
to remain at the aircraft and to continue working the b 
told again to remain at the aircrafl, you began arguing w 
don’t want to talk to you, I want to talk to Phoenix 7.” 
instances where you 
used the radieto exhibit disrespect and lack of discipline to your superiors and trainers (Atch 2, 
Tab 1). 

I 

- 

(5) On or about  16 Mar 99, afte 
you to install cotter pins on 6EA thrust 
reverse blocker doors, you were reluc 
You insisted the pins would not fit and 
would not go into the bolts.  According t 
correct according to T.O. 2- 
78.  After he inspected and sampl 
was able to fit them into the 
bolts.  You were again reluctant to complete the wo 
d.  He told you once more to 
install  the  pins.  When  he  re-inspected  your  work,  he  found  the  pins  were  not  completely 
installed  and  secured, and  the  excess was  not  snipped and  bent  down  according  to  standard 
general practice procedures.  Moreover, he found blocker door nuts only hand tight, and one each 
connection link bolt not installed.  You knowingly rendered an aircraft unsafe and passed it off as 
job completed in  a.hasty  effort to  go home for the day, which was  conscious negligence  and 
unsafe maintenance on your part (Atch 2, Tab 1). 

(6) On 17 Mar 99, you deliberately and knowingly interrupte 

over the radio several times. after he clearlv and distinctlv ordered v 
was witnessed b 
Atch 2, Tab 1). 

d 

ansmission 
it.  This incident 

- 

(7)  On or about  17 Mar 99, you  were told  to  prep and to  as- 

with  fan blade 
removal Erom  the #3  engine of Aircraft 84-0187.  Instead, you were found standing away from 
the aircraft visiting with crew chiefs and taking a smoke break,  while 
completed the 
task.  For  failing to  perform  assigned duties properly  in paragraphs 2a(2) through 2a(7), you 
received a letter of counseling on 17 Mar 99 (Atch 2, Tab 1). 

(8) On or a L u t  20 Apr 9 
nned you personally that you would&  working 
12-hour shift during the eng 
gine on Aircraft #79-1951.  You repeated this 
instruction back to him to confmn it.  On 21 Apr 99, you were informed that the engine change 
n  progress  again  and  you  would  be  working  12-hour shift. 
inded you also.  Then you told the 
ou seemed to have either forgott 

or have chosen to ignore them.  For your actions, you received a RIC on 22 Apr 99 (Atch 3, 
Tab 1). 

(9) On or about 9 Jul 99, you were specifically instructed to collect, inventory, and account 
for all borescope equipment items you and your shift used prior to going home.  You ensured 

further  training,  as evidenced  by  AF  Form  623a  (OJT  Training  Record  Continuation  Sheet) 
(Atch 8, Tab 1). 

(2) On 27 Jul 99, following a review of your training record and progress, it was determined 
you required further training due to these reasons:  (a) leaving tools/equipment inside of engine; 
(b) exhibiting a great degree of difficulty assisting with task, and displaying frustration, episodes 
of rage to your supervisor, by slamming and throwing tools, that you are personally challenged in 
regards to  general maintenance practices and procedures, such as,  installation of “B”  nuts  and 
engine plumbing.  It was then determined that training would  resume until  both fl and your 
supervisors were satisfied and comfortable with your general maintenance practice a&lities and 
competency with  performing  the  task.  At  that  time,  your  trainer was  dissatisfied’with  your 
performance,  lack of confidence, and motivation.  It was recommended that ’they &ould  focus 
closely on yo& upgrade to 5-skill level. 

(3) Upon arriving on station on 25 Nov 97, you were placed on training status code (TSC) B 
(airman  receiving  3-skill  level  experience or  in  UGT  for  the  initial  award  of  a  5-skill  level 
AFSC).  You  successfully  completed  MQTP  without problem.  The training  section records 
show the  maximum time  for  anyone  in  your  AFSC  to  be  awarded the  5-skill level  has  been 
15 months.  You  are now at the  30-month point.  You  have  been decertified in  various tasks 
approximately 18 times,  which translated  into 64 out of 79-core task  certified and  62 of  174- 
workcenter task certified.  Your vocabulary score of  11.8 and reading comprehension score of 
11.1 during an Air  Force Reading  Abilities  Test  indicated these  were not  problem  areas.  As 
4 Jan 00, you made no progress in your  upgrade training.  The training monitor suggested on 
23 Mar 00 you needed to make more efforts towards your training.  Although you were made 
aware  of  your  deficiencies,  you  showed  no  improvement.  With  these  factors  in  mind, 
I determined that you were afforded ample opportunity in an attempt to upgrade you  to  5-skill 
level  status.  Despite these efforts, you  have  not  accepted responsibility for your  5-skill level 
training.  Because you were decertified on several tasks, I opted to withdraw you from the 5-skill 
level upgrade training and placed you in TSC “T” for failure to progress in OJT according to 
AFI 36-2201, Attachment 4 (Atch 8, Tab 1). 

3.  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 will decide whether you will  be discharged or retained in the Air  Force.  If you  are 
discharged, you will be ineligible for reenlistment in the Air Force and any special pay, bonus, or 
educational assistance funds may be subject to recoupment. 

c 

4. You have the right to consult counsel.  Mili 
I  have  made  an  appointment  for  you  to  con 

counsel at your own expense. 

- 

.- 

. 

- 

c 

” S  

5.  You  have  the  right  to  submit  statements  on  your  behalf.  Any  statements you  want  the 
separation authority to  consider must reach me by  (three workdays from  service of this  letter) 
hours unless you request and receive 

, no later than 

7 AtR  &m 

an extension for good cause.  I will send any documents you submit to the separation authority. 

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

7.  Any personal information you furnish in rebuttal is covered by the Privacy Act  Statement of 
1974.  A copy of AFI 36-3%08 is available for your use in the orderly room. 

8.  Execute thegittached acknowledgment and return it to me immediately. 

- - 

Commander - 

Attachments 
1.  RIC,5Aug98 
2.  LOC,  17 Mar 99 
3.  RIC, 22 Apr 99 
4.  RIC, 19 Jul99 
-5.  LOR, 9 A u ~  99 
6.  LOR, 5 Nov 99 
7.  LOR, 10 Mar 09; AF Form 1058,22 Mar 00 
8.  Memorandum of 660 AGSKC, 27 Mar 00 

PAFSC Information, 28 Mar 00 
rt to CCF, 16 Mar 00 

19 Aug 98 to 23 Mar 00 

MFR, 17 Aug 98 
AFRAT Test Results, 6 Apr 99 

9.  Other Derogatory Data: 

MFR, 3 Sep 98 
MFR, 3 Sep 99 
60 MDOS/SGOHH Memorandum, 18 Nov 99 

,22 Nov 99 

-