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. 

CASh NUMBkK 
FD-0 1-00036 

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel at Andrews AFB, 
MD on June 28,2001. 

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: 

Exhibit 5:  Applicant's contentions. 

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

FINDINGS: Upgrade ofkhanges 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 or 
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 too  harsh.  The records indicated the 
applicant  received  an  Article  15, two  Letters of Reprimand, and four Records of Individual Counseling  for 
misconduct.  The misconduct included operating a vehicle while drunk, failing to go to her place of duty at the 
prescribed time on four separate occasions, and failing to keep awake while on duty on two occasions.  The 
DRE3  opined  that  through these  administrative  actions, the  applicant had  ample opportunities to change her 
negative behavior.  After careful consideration of the testimony and information provided by the applicant and 
her  counsel, 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. 

Issue 2 applies to the applicant's post-service activities.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was 
doing well.  However, no inequity or impropriety 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. 

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. 

[n view of the foregoing findings the board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for 
upgrade/change 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-01-00036 

(Former A1C) 

1.  MATTER UNDER REVIEW:  Appl rec’d a GEN Disch fr USAF 93/11/08 UP-AFR 39-10, 
para 5-46 (Misconduct -  Minor Disciplinary Infractions) .  Appeals for Honorable 
Disch. 

2.  BACKGROUND: 

a. DOB: 70/02/18.  Enlmt Age: 21 4/12.  Disch Age: 23 8/12. Educ:HS DIPL. 

AFQT: N/A.  A-67,  E-49,  G-59,  M-18. PAFSC: 27131 -  Apprentice Airfield 
Managkment Specialist. DAS: 92/02/21. 

b.  Prior Sv: AFRes 91/06/21 -  91/12/25 (6 months 5 days)(Inactive). 

3.  SERVICE UNDER REVIEW: 

L 

a. 

Enld as A1C 91/12/26 for 4 yrs.  Svd: 1 Yrs 10 Mo 13 Das, all AMs. 

b. 

Grade Status:  none. 

C. 

d. 

e. 

Time Lost:  none. 

Art 15’s:  (1) 93/08/24, Dover AFB, DE - Article 111.  You did, o/a 15 

Aug 93, on Arnold Drive, operate a vehicle, to wit: a 
passenger car, while drunk.  Rdn to Amn  (susp till 23 
Feb 94), and forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for two 
months.  (No appeal)  (No mitigation) 

Additional: LOR, 02 SEP 93 -  Failure to go. 
LOR, 03 AUG 93 -  Failure to go. 
LOC, 31 AUG 93 -  Sleeping on duty. 
LOCI 26 JUN 93 -  Failure to go. 
LOCI 24 APR 93 -  Sleeping on duty. 
LOC, 09 NOV 92 -  Failure to go. 

f. 

CM:  none. 

g -  

Record of SV: 91/12/26  93/09/28  Dover AFB  2  (Initial) 

(Discharged from Dover AFB) 

h. 

i. 

Awards &  Decs:  NDSM, AFTR. 
Stmt of Sv:  TMS:  (2) Yrs  (4) Mos  (18) Das 
TAMS:  (1) Yrs  (10) Mos  (13) Das 

4.  BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW:  Appln  (DD Fm 293) dtd 00/12/28. 

(Change Discharge to Honorable) 

mol-00036 

Issue 1:  My discharge was inequi ible because i 

was based on one isolated 

incident during my length of service in the Air Force with no other adverse 
action. 

ATCH 
1. Two Character References. 

- 

01/02/01/ia 

DEPARTMENT OF T H E  AIR  F O R C E  

HEADQUARTERS 436TH AIRLIFT W I N G  ( A M C )  

FROM: JA (Cap 

SUBJ: 

TO:  436  MSSQ/MSP 

15  October 1 9 H -  

Discharge Action, A1 
OSS' 

. 

ated against 
or misconduct, 
, under Air Force 
Regulation 39-10,  paragraph 5-46.  Respondent's commander 
recommends a discharge with a general service 
characterization without probation and rehabilitation.  For 
reasons set forth below, we concur with the recommendation of 
respondent's commander. 
2.  Procedural Status:  This discharge action has been 
processed through notification procedures.  Respondent was 
served with the notification letter on 1  October 1993,  and 
consulted with legal counsel on that same date.  The 
completed package arrived in the Office of the Staff Judge 
Advocate on the ninth duty day, Friday, 15  October 1993,  for 
legal review. 
3.  Background Information:  Respondent enlisted in the Air 
Force on 26  December 1991,  for a term of four years, and has 
served on continuous active duty since that date.  She has 
been assigned to the 436  OSS since 21  February 1992. 
Respondent received one EPR with an overall evaluation of 2 
on 28  September 1993.  Respondent is entitled to wear the 
National Defense Service Medal and the Air Force Training 
Ribbon. 
4 .   Evidence: 

a.  For the Government:  On or about 24  April 1992, 

respondent failed to stay awake and alert during duty hours, 
for which she received a letter of counseling on 24  April 
1993.  On or about 05  November 1992,  respondent failed to 
attend a mandatory formation', Commander's Call, f o r  which she 
received a letter of counseling on 09  November 1992.  On or 
about 26  June 1993,  respondent failed to go to her appointed 
place of duty, for which she received a letter of counseling 

AMC-GLOBAL REACH FOR AMERICA 

- 

- 

on 28  June 1992.  On or about 05  August 1993,  respondent 
failed to go to her mandatory Dispatch meeting, for which she 
received a letter of reprimand on 07 August 1993. 
Thereafter, on or about 15  August 1993,  respondent operated a 
motor vehicle on Dover Air Force Base while under the 
influence of alcohol.  For that misconduct, respondent 
received Article 15,  UCMJ punishment, which consisted of a 
suspended reduction to Airman and forfeiture of $100  pay for 
- 
two months;  On or about 31  August 1993,  respondent was hund 
sleeping-en duty, for which she received a letter of  __ 
counseling on 31  August 1993.  Lastly, on or about 02 
September 1993,  respondent failed to go to a mandatory 
dispatchers meeting, for which she received a letter of 
reprimand on 09 September 1993.  Based upon the above noted 
pattern of misconduct, respondent's commander initiated this 
discharge action. 

b.  For the Respondent: 

( 1 )   Respondent submitted a statement wherein she 
requests to be retained in the Air Force.  If she is 
discharged, respondent requests an honorable characteri- 
zation.  Respondent states that the most serious incident is 
the driving while intoxicated charge, for  which she received 
an Article 15.  She relates that she had no business being 
behind the wheel of a car and "[ilt  was a very stupid and 
careless thing to do." 

(2)  Respondent states that in the two months since 

she received the Article 15,  she has been trying to stay "out 
of the way of anything that would land [her] in trouble." 
She asserts the letter of reprimand she received for missing 
a dispatchers meeting at 1500  hours on 02  September 1 9 9 3   was 
unjust, because she was reprimanded for failing to be able to 
be in two places at the same time.  Respondent relates that 
she was told to go to the orderly room at 1500  hours to sign 
papers.  After being at the orderly about seven minutes, 
respondent said she was paged and asked why she was not at 
the dispatchers meeting.  Respondent replied that she had 
forgotten the meeting due to the fact that she was in the 
orderly room. 

( 3 )   Respondent states she joined the Air Force to 
serve her country and to belong t o   an organization that was 
built on integrity, pride, and unity.  At basic training, 
respondent states that she felt like she "belonged there." 
Since coming to Dover AFB, respondent states that various 
military members have told her negative things about Dover 
AFB.  She states that people in her office discredit one 

another and that she has never experienced that type of 
behavior in a work place. 

(4)  Respondent states that, regarding her first 

- 

II 

(5)  Respondent also relates that she asked her 

letter of counseling, her supervisor told her to go to sleep 
after he came from a nap.  Respondent asserts that her 
supervisor told her LOCs and LORs were ''not a big deal at 
all" and no one else would ever see them, therefore, she 
chose n o t k o  respond to the LOCs. 

- 
-- 
supervisor if she could teach a quality course, either Teams 
and Tools or QAF.  She stated that her supervisor denied her 
request, stating that the section was shorthanded and TQM was 
a pile of crap anyway."  Respondent asserts that "[tlhis  is 
the type of motivation [she is] given in [her] office." 
( 6 )   Respondent admits that she is not a model 
person, but states that it is hard not to make mistakes when 
you are constantly told how to do different things, by 
different people.  Respondent states that she loves being in 
the Air Force and would be honored to continue to serve her 
country and excel through the ranks in the Air Force. 
5.  Errors/Irregularities:  It should be noted that three 
of the dates in the letter of notification are not accurate. 
Respondent operated a vehicle under the influence of alcohol 
on 15 August 1993, not 24 August 1993.  The date that 
respondent failed to attend a mandatory meeting, for which 
she received a letter of reprimand, was 5 August 1993, not 3 
August 1993.  Respondent failed to go to a Commander's Call, 
for which she received a letter of counseling, on 5  November 
1992, not 9 November 1992 as listed in the notification 
letter. 
6. Discussion: 

a.  AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-46, provides that a pattern of 
misconduct consisting solely of minor disciplinary 
infractions in the current enlistment makes an airman subject 
to discharge.  AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-46,  also provides that 
failure to comply with nonpunitive regulations or minor 
offenses under the UCMJ that result in formal counselings, 
letters of reprimand, or Article 1 5   nonjudicial punishments 
are the type of infractions that subject an airman to 
discharge under this paragraph.  In this case, respondent 
failed to report to her appointed place of duty on  four 

- 

c 

__ 

separate occasions, was found sleeping on duty twice and 
operated a motor vehicle while she was under the influence of 
alcohol.  Four of the most serious incidents of misconduct 
occurred in less than one month, from 5 August 1993, to 2 
September 1993.  Respondent's flagrant violations of the UCMJ 
during that month indicates she does not have the ability or 
desire to conform with Air Force standards.  Respondent's 
above noted pattern of misconduct establishes a legally 
sufficientbasis for discharge under AFR  39-10, paragraph 
5- 46. 
- 
-_ 
b.  In her statement, respondent asserts that when she 
received her first LOC, her supervisor informed her that LOCs 
and LORs were ''no big deal" and that no one would see them. 
Even if she had received that advice regarding her first LOC, 
that does not excuse respondent's subsequent repeated and 
flagrant violations of the UCMJ.  Her statement that she is 
now in the position of trying to rebut counselings which 
occurred several months ago is not accurate.  The majority of 
the misconduct that forms the basis for this discharge action 
occurred in August and September 1993, not several months 
ago.  Respondent had the opportunity to respond to all of the 
latest actions, but only chose to respond to the Article 15, 
UCMJ punishment.  Respondent's assertion that she was 
reprimanded on 09 September 1993 for not being in two places 
at the same time is not a proper characterization of that 
incident.  Respondent was reprimanded for demonstrating a 
lack of responsibility by not attending a mandatory meeting 
and by not contacting anyone regarding her absence.  The 
actions taken against respondent for her misconduct were 
warranted and appropriate. 

c.  AFR 39-10, paragraph 6-1, provides that when a basis 

for discharge is established, the member's entire military 
record must be considered in the decision to separate or 
retain the member.  In addition to respondent's misconduct, 
the case file indicates that her duty performance is poor. 
She received an overall evaluation of 2  on her latest EPR. In 
addition, her commander, 436 OSS/CC, indicates in the letter 
recommending discharge that respondent fails to perform 
competently without constant supervision and has been 
decertified in several primary duty tasks.  Respondent's 
record of misconduct and poor duty performance indicates she 
lacks potential for continued service in the Air Force. 
Therefore, respondent's separation is appropriate. 

- 

d.  As mentioned above, respondent's commander recommends 

that respondent receive a general service characterization. 
We concur.  AFR  39-10,  paragraph 1-18,  provides that an 
honorable discharge is appropriate when the quality of the 
airman's service generally has met Air Force standards of 
acceptable conduct and performance of duty.  A  general 
service characterization is in order when significant 
negative aspects of the airman's conduct or performance of 
duty outweigh the positive aspects of his military record. 
An under other than honorable conditions discharge is  - 
appropriate where the airman's misconduct is a significas 
departure from conduct expected of airmen.  As a general 
rule, discharge for misconduct will be characterized as 
general.  An honorable discharge may be warranted if the 
respondent's service, apart from the reasons for separation, 
has beeh so  meritorious that any other characterization would 
be clearly inappropriate.  In this case, respondent's brief 
service record is not so  meritorious as to warrant an 
honorable characterization.  The negative aspects of 
respondent's misconduct clearly outweigh any positive aspects 
of her military record.  Therefore, a general service 
characterization is warranted. 

e.  AFR 39-10,  paragraph 7-2(g),  provides that probation 
and rehabilitation may be offered where there i s  a reasonable 
expectation of rehabilitation.  Given respondent's inability 
or unwillingness to conform with Air Force standards in the 
past, despite various rehabilitative measures, no reasonable 
expectation exists that she will now be rehabilitated. 
Therefore, probation and rehabilitation are inappropriate. 
7.  Actions:  As the Special Court Martial Convening 
Authority  (SPCMCA), and thereby the separation authority, AFR 
39- 10,  paragraph 5-53,  provides that 436  AW/CC can: 

a. Direct that respondent be discharged with a general 
service characterization, with or without probation 
and rehabilitation. 

b. Recommend to the General Court Martial Convening 

Authority, 21  AF/CC, that respondent be discharged 
with an honorable discharge, with or without probation 
and rehabilitation. 

c. Direct processing of this discharge under Chapter 6, 

AFR 39-10,  if he finds that an under other than 
honorable conditions discharge is warranted. 
d. Discontinue this action if he finds that the 

commander's recommendation is not supported by  the 
evidence. 

8.  Conclusion:  This file is  in substantial compliance with 
the provisions of AFR  39-10 and is legally sufficient to 
discharge respondent prior  to the expiration of her term of 
enlistment. 

9.  Recommendation:  That 436 AW/CC direct that respondent be 
discharged with a general service characterization without 

- 

- - -_ 

Attorney's work  prodnct. Not for release nr transfer 
w i i k ~ ~ t  ? -, L+xiiic approval of the SJA. Not subject 
to discovery or release urrder 5 U.S.C. 552. 

DEPARTMENT O F  THE AIR  FORCE 

H E A D Q U A R T E R S  416TH A I R L I F T  WING (AMC) 

FROM:  436 OSS/CC 

1 Oct 93 

S U B J ECT :  Not if ica t io n Lett e r 

TO:  A1C 

- 

36 OSS 

- - 
- 
- J  

1.  I am recommending your discharge from the United SBtes Air  Force for 
misconduct,  specifically,  minor disciplinary  infractions.  The authority for this action 
is AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-46.  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 is your Record of Misconduct: 

DATE 

24 AUG 93 
2 SEP 93 
3 AUG 93 
31 AUG 93 
26 JUN 93 
24 APR 93, 
9 NOV 92 ' 

OFFENSE 

DWI 

FAILURE TO GO 
FAILURE TO GO 

SLEEPING ON DUTY 

FAILURE TO GO 

SLEEPING ON DUTY 

FAILURE TO GO 

ACTION 

ARTICLE  15 

LOR 
LOR 

LETTER OF COUNSELING 
LETTER OF COUNSELING 
LETTER OF COUNSELING 
LETTER OF COUNSELING 

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

3. You have the right to consult counsel.  Military legal counsel has been obtained 
t o  assist you.  I have made an appointment for you to consult Capt 
on 1 Oct 93 at Bldg 200, first floor.  You may consult civilian counsel at your own 
expense. 

at 1OOOhrs 

4. You have the right to submit statement in your own behalf.  Any statement you 
want the separation authority to consider  must reach me by 6 Oct at 0900hrs, 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. 

AMC-GLOBAL 

REACH FOR  AMERICA 

6.  You have been scheduled for a medical examination.  You must report to the 
Dover AFB  Hospital at 1300hrs on 6 Oct 93 at the family practice clinic with 
Dr 

for the examination. 

7.  Any  personal information you furnish in rebuttal is covered by the Privacy Act 
Statement as explained in AFR  39-10,  attachment 2.  A copy of AFR  39-10 is 
available for your use in the OSS Orderly Room. 

7 Atchs 
1. AF Form 3070, 
Article  15, UCMJ dtd 18 Aug 93 

2.  LOR,  dtd,  9 Sep  93 
3.  LOR,  dtd,  7 Aug 93 
4. AF Form 174, dtd 31 Aug 93 
5.  AF Form 174, dtd 24 Apr 93 
6.  AF Form 174, dtd 9 Nov 92 
7.  AF Form 174, dtd 28 Jun 92