AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE 

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honor&e:- 

CASE NUMBER 
FDO1-00043 

I . I I v p I - - , "  

- 

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:  Upgrade of discharge is 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. 

Issues 1-4.  These issues are essentially the same under the subject of overall service and are treated 
together.  The board found that the applicant indeed had very good service through his first assignment and 
appeared headed for a successful Air Force career. 

Issue 5.  There is no evidence in the record, nor was any provided by the applicant to substantiate this issue. 
If the applicant has additional evidence to substantiate this issue, the board encourages the applicant to 
exercise his right for a personal appearance.  The board would welcome any additional evidence or sworn 
testimony from a personal appearance board to  re-consider this issue as a mitigating factor. 

Issue 6.  Again, there is no evidence of record to substantiate this issue and the board would welcome 
swom testimony or statements from witnesses to corroborate this allegation. 

Issue 7.  The applicant states that the command "abused its authority" in effecting the discharge.  From the 
written record alone, it appears that the command followed all the appropriate steps in bringing about a 
discharge.  There is no evidence of the application for a Hardship Discharge in the present record.  If the 
applicant has that evidence the board would again welcome the introduction of that as an exhibit in a 
personal appearance hearing. 

The Board found no evidence in the record of impropriety or inequity in this case upon which to base an 
upgrade of discharge. 

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 &d  that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 

In view of the foregoing findings the board further regrets that there exists no legal or equitable basis for 
upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.  The board once again 
encourages the applicant to exercise his right of a personal appearance board to pursue his appeal. 

Attachment: 
Examiner's Brief 

- .  

- 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FOR& 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 

- 

ANDREWS AFB, MD 

. I  

1  I.(--^-,,. 

I 

FD-01-00043 

-
1.  MATTER UNDER REVIEW:  A p p l   rec'd  a  GEN  Disch  f r   USAF  9 0 / 1 0 / 1 9   UP  AFR  39- 10, 
p a r a   5- 46  (Misconduct  -  Minor  D i s c i p l i n a r y   I n f r a c t i o n s ) .   A p p e a l s   f o r   H o n o r a b l e  
Disch. 

.

 

( F o r m e r   SRA) 

2.  BACKGROUND: 

a .   DOB:  6 8 / 0 3 / 2 3 .  

E n l m t   A g e :   1 7   1 1 / 1 2 .   Disch  A g e :   22  6/12.  E d u c : H S   D I P L .  

E- 50,  G - 5 0 ,   M-44.  PAFSC:  81150  -  S e c u r i t y   S p e c i a l i s t .  

AFQT:  N/A. 
DAS:  8 9 / 0 4 / 1 3 .  

A- 85, 

b .   P r i o r   Sv:  A F R e s   8 6 / 0 2 / 2 6   -  8 6 / 0 9 / 0 1  

( 6  months  6  days) ( I n a c t i v e ) .  

3.  SERVICE UNDER REVIEW: 

a .   E n l d   a s   AB  8 6 / 0 9 / 0 2   f o r   6  y r s .   Svd:  4  Y r s   1 M o   1 8   Das,  a l l  M S .  

b.  G r a d e   S t a t u s :  

(NCO  S t a t u s   V a c a t e d ) .  

SRA  -  9 0 / 1 0 / 1 2  
SGT  -  8 9 / 0 2 / 1 7  
SRA  -  8 9 / 0 2 / 1 7  
, AMN-A1C  -  (APR  I n d i c a t e s )  :  8 6 / 0 9 / 0 2 - 8 7 / 0 9 / 0 1  

c.  T i m e   L o s t :   none. 

d .   A r t   1 5 ' s :  

none. 

e .   A d d i t i o n a l :   LOR,  1 2   OCT  90  -  R a c i a l   s l u r .  

LOR,  08  S E P   90  -  Dorm  room  i n s p e c t i o n   f a i l u r e .  
LOR,  11  S E P   90  -  L a t e   f o r   d u t y .  
LOR,  2 0   J U L   90  -  F a i l u r e   t o   go. 
LOR,  22  MAY  90  -  T r a f f i c   v i o l a t i o n s .  
LOC,  1 3   MAR  90  -  L a t e   f o r   d u t y .  
LOC,  1 9  AUG  8 9   -  Misconduct. 

% 

f .   CM: 

none. 

- 

g .   R e c o r d   of  SV:  8 6 / 0 9 / 0 2  
8 7 / 0 9 / 0 2  
8 8 / 0 4 / 1 1  
8 8 / 1 0 / 1 2  
8 9 / 0 2 / 0 9  

8 7 / 0 9 / 0 1   RAF  L a k e n h e a t h   8 
8 8 / 0 4 / 1 0   RAF  Lakenheath  9 
8 8 / 1 0 / 1 1   RAF  L a k e n h e a t h   9 
RAF  L a k e n h e a t h   8 
8 9 / 0 2 / 0 8  
9 0 / 0 2 / 0 8   Dyess  AFB 
5 

( D i s c h a r g e d   from  Dyess  AFB) 

h .   A w a r d s   &  Decs:  AFTR,  AFOUA,  AFGCM,  AFLSAR,  AFOSLTR. 
i .   S t m t   of  Sv: 

( 4 )   Y r s   ( 7 )   Mos 

( 2 4 )   Das 

TMS: 

- .   . 

( A n n u a l )  
(CRO) 
(CRO) 
(CRO) 
( A n n u a l )  

- 

TAMS:  (4) Yrs  (1) Mos  (18) Das- 

li .  " _  

4.  BASIS ADVANCED FOR  REVIEW:  Appln  (DD Fm 293) dtd 01/01/11. 

(Change Discharge to Honorable) 

mol-00043 

_-_ 

- 

Issue 1:  My average conduct and efficiency ratings/behavior and proficiency 

~ 

marks were good  (or better). 

Issue 2:  I received several awards and decorations and letters of 

recommendation. 

- 

Issue 3:  My awards and letters of recommendations came from voluntary 
activity to help improve military and/or civilian relations.  EX.  (Special 
Olympics -  ERT, etc.) . 

Issue 4:  My record of promotions showed I was generally a good service 

member. 

Issue 5:  My ability to serve was impaired slightly by my troubled young 

marriage and other family problems. 

Issue 6:  I faced racial discrimination and that impaired my ability to 

. 
serve.  When I was stationed overseas my tour of duty was at R.A.F. Lakenheath, 
a very diverse unit.  Especially among the Enlisted Corp.  I had no problems 
previously among my peers until the incident that initiated the disciplinary 
process that led to my discharge.  My stateside duty at Dyess A.F.B. didn't 
reflect the same diversity.  My tour of duty stateside was above average. 
The incident that initiated the discharge process involved a SSgt ------ , who 
himself was under investigation for trying to "forcibly" recruit young Airmen 
into the "Arian Brotherhood''  (A racial organization that discriminates against 
non-whites).  When this information was noted to my Commanding Officer, he 
blatantly refused to acknowledge it.  I had several statements from witness that 
were in the immediate vicinity when the "incident" occurred between SSgt ------ 
and myself. 
taken into account.  I was given a choice: go to jail for 30  days with a 
demotion or opt for a "General Discharge."  I was told I "could have my 
discharge upgraded to Honorable after 6 months with no problems."  I didn't join 
the military to go to jail, especially for something I didn't do SQ  I opted to 
take the discharge.  I was properly  (sic) an E-4  Sargeant  (sic) and proud of it 
and I believed there was a better solution but not advised.  Had any 
investigation been done I would have been exonnerated  (sic) of the false charges 
brought against me. 

Two SSgt's and 1 Sgt., whose statements were submitted but not 

Issue 7:  M y  command abused it's authority when it decided to discharge me 
I was told by my commanding lieutenant 
an decided' to give me a bad discharge. 
(sic) that he couldn't get me the "General Discharge" unless I agreed.  I was 
also having personal problems prior to all of this and sought to get a "Hardship 
Discharge", due to the fatal illness of my Grandmother that raised me.  The 
lieutenant (sic) said he tried to get the "HD" for me but couldn't.  He stated 
"he could put a packet-  together with "Minor offenses" that could constitute 
reason enough for a "General Discharge."  I asked my SSgt. supervisa- for 

J?DOl-00043 

guidance, and "he told me to take the discharge", "i$.wasn't that bad."  I 
talked to the Unit Chaplain, but he didn't help.  I do believe there was a 
better solution, but not offered,  (like counseling etc.) I also believe if my 
case had been fully investigated and all factors taken into consideration, the 
outcome would have been different, more postiwe.  Under proper counse-Sinq I 
would have refused-the  "General Discharge. 

- 

. I  ---,". 

I 

My life I  know has been affected negatively.  I wanted to make a "career" out of 
the "Air Force."  To attend College to become a "Pilot", (my entry tests, 
physical and aptitude were good enough to be considered for the position of 
Pilot after college).  My military record reflects that I was a member devoted 
to my duty, despite my personal problems.  I was exemplary in my duties, I 
"followed orders", "completed assignments", and followed my "chain of command. 'I 
I understand it was not the fault of the Air Force for my discharge.  But I 
believe the actions of one over zealous young lieutenant (sic).  I  do pray that 
"maturity" allowed him to make better decisions for the Air Force.  May God 
bless you and your duty to our nation.  Thank you. 

Please respond to above listed references if denied.  Thank you. 

ATCH 
none. 

01/02/09/ia 

DEPARTMENT OFTHE AIR FORCE 

H E A D Q U A R T E R S   9 6 T H  B O M B A R D M E N T  W I N G   (SAC1 

DYESS AIR  F O R C E  BASE.  T E X A S  7 9 6 0 7 - 5 0 0 0  

- 

. . 

. 

Review: 

REPLY  TO 
ATTN  O F  

J A  

SUBJECT 

sup 
SrA 

1 .   AS  previously  briefed  to you Friday morning  ( 1 9   Oct YO),  S r A  

believes  his discharge is  tainted  because  the final incident 
ing  in initiation of  discharge proceedings was not, in  fact, a 
racial  incident as  it has been characterized.  Further, he asks that 
his discharge be  Honorable rather  than General.  In support of his 

itted two additioi 
isputing what S r A  

ness statements from Sgt 
is alleged  to have said 

1 

i o  
a n 
to ssgt 

t 90, Sr 
and TSgt 

oke with me  briefly  and  told ,me 
of  Social Actions supported S r A  

2. 
Cap 
in his posi 
called TSgt 
incident.  After  a lengthy discussion  I  determined  TSgt 
position  to be  that he was uncertain  i f   the sta 
guys need  to get a brain,” had  been made by  S r A  
because several statements had  been made by  different parties and the 
statements were  i_n conflict. 

ding-the incident not being  a racial slur).  I 
and spoke with him to verify  hls 

the 

3 .   However, i f   the statement had been made, T 
.  term it a racially disparaging  term rather tha 
defined by  AFR 30-2.  I would agree with TSgt 
of  racially disparaging  terms are prohibited  by  AFR  30-2 as well  as 
racial  slurs although  the degree of offensiveness may  be  less for a 
disparaging  term.  On  19  Oct 90, I called Soeial 
Social Actions  would  be submitt 
or Capt 
Neither TSg 
the person at Sociai--Actions whom I was speaking with, was aware of 
my  conversation with TS 
the previous day And stated that 
ecided not to subrn1t-a statement 
TSgt- 
and Capt 
regarding SrA 
d 

e incident in question. 

tter on SrA 
were availa 

would 
r  as 
ysis. Use 

also spoke to me  of  family problems that he had  been 

the death of a close relative, marital problems, 

problems UJith  personal  stress and sleepin-g.  He attributed some of 
the failure to go,incidents to his problems  getting to sleep and  then 
waking  up late after  finally  falling asleep.  He stated that he had 
been working  for several month 
had been working  with Chaplain 

aining a hardship discharge and 
in that regard. 

- 

War is our profession  --  Peace is our product 

.  .. 

~ * 

- 

firmed some  of  what SrA 
ersonal problems  SPA 
He 
-hardshig ,r&j&?&a~ge. 
concerning his declining 
t,  anothei. incident would 
racial slur incident 

_- - - 

5 .   This msrning  ( 1 3   O c t   Y O ,   ,  hlaj 
had  told me.  He w a s   aware 
was having and his attempt 
tated  that he  had  counselled SrA 

last warning  to S r A  

duty performance and had  warned  SrA' 
result in administrative actioii. 
came s o o n   after Maj 
6.  ANALYSSS:  There  is sufficient evidence  to 
incident Gj 
ree occurred  involving  S r A  
comment was a racial slur o 
Whether SrA 
not important.  Even  i f   i t  is not viewed  as a 
disparaging 
'racial"  incident but  rather as a disorderly conduct inciden 
provoking speech and gestures  incident, it appears that SrA 
comments constituted  misconduct.  It may  not have been a 
incident of  misconduct  but  it must be remembered  that SrA 
not being  discharged  for this single incident but  for a s 
incidents over the past ten months. 
sufficient evidence  to support SrA 
separated.for a series of  minor dis 

scharge package has 
discharge.  He  is being 
y infractions. 

was  the m o s t   recent incident o f   misconduct 
The latest  i 
involving Sr 
but  not ne 
times within the last year SrA 
these  incidents could have resulted in Article  15  punishment.  Had 
such punishment been  given, the package would  appear a little 
stronger but AFR  39- 10  makes  it clear that a member may  be processed 
only with a series of counselings and reprimands as in the case here. 

'ly the most  significant.  Three 
has been  late f o r   work.  Any  of 

AS  for the characterization of 
of an Honorable discharge, S r A  
An Honorable discharge for misconduct  is an extremely infrequent 
occurrence.  Ordinarily, the only discharge cases where Honorable 
discharges are awarded  involve failure to meet weight standards, 
discharges for homosexual  misconduct, and character and behavior 
disorders.  Using  the standards set out in AFR 39-10, paragraph  1 - 1 8 ,  
a General discharge is most appropriate. 

as a General discharge instead 
as little cause f o r   complaint. 

7.  RECOMMENDATION:  I  recommend that you sign the attached action 
which reconfirms your original decision to separate SrA 
General discharge under paragraph  5 - 4 6   without the oppo 
probation and rehabilitation. 

+ 

D E P A R T M E N T  OF T H E  AIR  F O R C E  

H E A D Q U A R T E R S  96TH C O M B A T  S U P P O R T  G R O U P  ( S A C  I 

D Y E S S  A I R  F O R C E  B A S E ,  T E X A S  79607-5000 

SUBJECT. 

- 

Letter of  Notification 

- 

SrA 

TO 

1 .   I  am recommending your discharge  from the United  States Air 
Force for Misconduct  - -   Minor Disciplinary  Infractions.  The 
authority  for this action  is AFR 3 9 - 1 0 ,   Section H, paragraph 5-46. 
I f   my  recommendation  is approved, your service w i l l   be 
characterized as Honorable or General.  I am recommending that your 
service be characterized as General  (Under Honorable Conditions). 

2 .   My  reasons  for this action are: 

a.  Investigation disclosed that you did, on or about 7  Oct 9 0 ,  

at Dyess AFB, TX, make a racial slur towards SSgt 
statement was something  to the effect of  “You whi 
get a brain,” as evidenced by  LOR dated  12  Oct 9 0 ,   and  for this 
your NCO status was vacated, as evidenced by  AF Form 418  dated  12 
Oct 90. 

b.  On or about 6 Sep 9 0 ,   a dormitory  inspection was conducted 

and your room did not meet standards, as evidenced by  LOR dated 8 
Sep 90. 

c.  You were, on or about 8 Sep Y O ,  at Dyess AFB, TX, without 
authority, late for duty, i - e . ,  SPOS-A Guardmount, as evidenced by 
LOR dated  1 1  S e p   9 0 .  

d.  You did, on or about 20 Jul 9 0 ,   at Dyess AFB. TX, without 

authority, fail to report to your place of  duty, i.e., ‘guardmount, 
as evidenced by  LOR dated 20  Jul 90. 

e.  You were, on or about 17  Jun 9 0 ,   at Dyess AFB, TX, issued 

three traffic citation, one for no drivers license, ticket 
tR826039; Speeding, ticket xR826037; and defective tail  light, 
ticket #R326050, as evidenced by  the above mentioned  tickets. 

~ 

f .   You did, on or about  19  May  90, receive your fourth parking 

ticket at-Dyess AFB, TX, as evidenced  by-LOR dated 22 May  9 0 .  

’Ir 

-4‘ 
-e5 
-- 
9 

.- 

P e a c e .

.

 .  .  i s   o u r   P r o f e s s i o n  

g .   You did, on or about  13  Mar  9 0 ,   without authority, late 

for work, also further investigation revealed that on or about  1 4  
Dec 8 9 ,   you were counseled  for being  late for work, as evidenced by 
LOC dated  13 Mar YO. 

. --*-,” 

- 

-_ 

- I. 

--. 

h.  You were, on or about  19  Aug  8 9 ,   observed  talking and 

walking out of  formation.  This was a military  formation and you 
were directed  to be at ease, not at rest, as evidenced by-LOC dated 
19 Aug  8 9 .   - 
Copies of-the documents to be  forwarded  to  the separatiton- 
authority‘in support of this recommendation are attached.  The 
commander exercising SPCM jurisdiction or 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. 
If  you are discharged, you will  be  ineligible for reenlistment in 
the Air Force. 

~ 

3 .   You have the right to consult counsel.  Military  legal counsel 
has been-obtained to assist you.  I have made an appointment for 
you to consult the Area Defense Counsel on -Jg&c.-qo  at  / S O D .  
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 -@&Jf-%-  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.  You have been scheduled  for a medical  examination on lh>&z-?? 
at 0700. 

7.  Any  personal  information you furnish in rebuttal is covered by 
the Privacy Act  Statement as explained in AFR  3 9 - 1 0 ,   attachment 6 .  
A  copy of  AFR  39- 10  is available  for your+ use  in the orderly room. 
8.  Execute  the attached acknowledgment and return it to me