AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE 

CASE X 3 I B E R  
FD02-0007 

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

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. 

ISSUE:  Applicant  contends  discharge  was  inequitable  because  it  was  too  harsh.  He  states  that  under 
current standards, he would not have received the type of discharge he did.  Also, member contends that his 
conduct  and  efficiency ratings  and  behavior were  mostly  pretty good and that he has  been  a good citizen 
since  his  discharge. 
The Board  reviewed  the  entire  record  and  found  no  evidence of impropriety  or 
inequity in this case on which to base an upgrade of discharge.  The records indicated the applicant received 
an  Article  15 for  failing  to  report  a  government  vehicle  accident  and  without  proper  authority,  through 
neglect, damaged a government vehicle by driving the vehicle into a wall.  Also, the applicant received two 
Letters of Reprimand  for having a vehicle mishap and  failure to maintain  control of his military  working 
dog.  And, he received  a Letter of Counseling for dereliction of duty and five Memo's for Record for failing 
room  inspection, being  late for duty,  failure to maintain  control  of his  military  dog and  leaving  his  post 
prior  to relief.  The  applicant  had  one EPR and  it  was  a  referral.  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 and 
concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct. 

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 hrther 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 

FD2002-0007 

(Former AB)  (HGH A1C) 

1.  MATTER UNDER REVIEW:  Appl rec’d a GEN Disch fr USAF 92/01/13 UP AFR 39-10, 
para 5-46  (Misconduct -  Minor Disciplinary Infractions).  Appeals for Honorable 
Disch. 

2.  BACKGROUND: 

a. DOB: 70/07/27.  Enlmt Age: 18 2/12.  Disch Age: 21 5/12. Educ:HS DIPL. 
AFQT: N/A.  A-45,  E-51,  G-55,  M-56. PAFSC: 8113A - Apprentice Law Enforcement 
Specialist. DAS: 90/01/28. 

b.  Prior Sv: (1) AFRes 88/10/17 -  89/06/29  (8 months 13 days) (Inactive). 

3.  SERVICE UNDER REVIEW: 

a.  Enlisted as AB 89/06/30 for 4 yrs. Svd: 02 Yrs 06 Mo 14 Das, all AMs. 
b.  Grade Status:  AB -  91/10/10  (Article 15, 91/10/10). 

A1C -  90/10/30 

c.  Time Lost:  none. 

d.  Art 15’s:  (1) 91/10/10, Sembach AB, Germany -  In that you, who knew 
or should have known of your duty, on or about 20 Sep 
91, were derelict in the performance of those duties in 
that you willfully failed to report a government 
vehicle accident, as it was your duty to do.  Further 
investigation has disclosed that you did, on or about 
20 Sep 91, without proper authority, through neglect, 
suffer a government vehicle of a value in excess of 
$1,000.00, military property of the United States, to 
be damaged by driving the vehicle into a wall, the 
amount of said damage being in the sum of about 
$401.23.  Reduction to AB, and 30 days extra duty. 
(No appeal) (No mitigation) 

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

UNDATED -  Leaving post prior to relief. 
09 JAN  91 - Vehicle mishap. 
09 JAN  91 - Failed room inspection. 
26 DEC 90 - Failure to maintain control of military 

working dog. 

dog. 

MFR, 
MFR , 

MFR , 
LOCI 

UNDATED -  Late for duty. 
17 DEC 90 - Failure to maintain control of military 
21 DEC 90 - Late for duty. 
15 DEC 90 - Dereliction of duty. 

FD2002-0007 

f.  CM:  none 

g.  Record of SV: 89/06/30 -  91/03/16  Semback AB  2  (1nitial)REF 

(Discharged from Charleston AFB) 

h.  Awards &  Decs:  SAEMR, NDSM, AFTR, AFOUA. 
i.  Stmt of Sv:  TMS:  (03) Yrs  (02) Mos  (27) Das 
TAMS:  (02) Yrs  ( 0 6 )   Mos  (14) Das 

4 .   BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW:  Appln  (DD Fm 293) dtd 01/12/28. 

(Change Discharge to Honorable) 

Issue 1:  Under current standards, I would not receive type of discharge I 

did. 

Issue 2:  My conduct and efficiency ratings/behavior and proviciency marks 

were mostly preety good. 

Issue 3:  I received awards and decorations. 

Issue 4:  I have been a good citizen since discharge. 

Issue 5:  My record of NJP's/Article 15's indicates only isolated or minor 

offenses . 

ATCH 

,  1. Letter to the Discharge Review Board. 

2. Applicant's Issues. 
3. Six Character References. 
4. DD Form 214. 
5. AF Form 3005. 
6. DD Forms 4. 
7. AF 3070, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment Proceeding. 
8. Medical &  Dental Documents. 

02/05/08/ia 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR  FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS 66TH ELECTRONIC COMBAT WING  (USAFE) 

APO  NEW YORK  09136-5000 

2 December 1991 

66  SPS 

SUBJECT:  AFR 39 - 10 Discharge, 

TO:  cv 
cc 
IN TURN 

I h  

1. 
support A 
Ph 
recommends a general discharge. 

d the attached case file and find it legally sufficient to 
separation for minor disciplinary infract 
9-10, 
a general discharge.  The commander, Maj 

* 

2. 

Evidence for the government: 

a. 

Between 15 December 1990 and 20 September 1991, AB-thas 

received an Article 15 for damage to a government vehicle, and numerous 
written and verbal reprimands and counselings, for misbehavior ranging from 
maltreatment of his military working dog to leaving his guard post early 
without permission. 

b. 

Additional evidence for the government, not detailed in the 
notification letter, but included as attachments thereto includes verbal 
counseling for an unacceptable barracks room, being late to work, and failing 
to bring his dog to guardmount. 

3. 

Evidence for the respondent: 

(a) 

The respondent is 21 years old. 

He began his initial enlistment 
on 30 June 1989, with no prior active or inactive service. 
He has received 
one EPR.  It was an overall two, and was properly referred.  He was assigned 
to the 66 SPS on 28 January 1990. 

(b)  AB 
1991.  A f t e r   c 
on his behalf. 
consideration. 
if he is, he wants an honorable service characterization. 
follow : 

was properly notified of this action on 19 November 
g,with military legal counsel, he submitted a statement 
AB -has 
written a  fairly articulate letter f o r  your 
The thrust of  it is that he doesn't want to be discharged, but 

Specific comments 

I 

(1)  With respect to his continued retention in service, he cites 
his potektial t o  perform as  evidenced by his training accomplishments in basic 
and tech school training.  Nevertheless, this does not dispel his actual 
documented work performance, which has fallen far below standards. 

( 2 1   H i s   real  concern seems to be his service characterization. 
wants to work for the federal government in some capacity involving 
He is concerned that a general discharge 

'AB 
working dogs, such as a DEA agent. 
will r u i n  his chances for follow-on employment with a government agency.. 

Prince is correct; a general discharge will place him at a competitive disad- 
vantage to one with an honorable discharge.  However, a properly determined 
service characterization should in fact characterize one's military service: 
collateral effects of such a characterization should not cloud the real issue: 
how should AB 

service be characterized? 

will lose hi 

also addresses the fact that if dischar 
ility.  This is true,* but is driven not 
characterization, but by his time in service.  According to 
emain on active duty for 
at the Education Office, on 
n any  GI Bill benefits. 
will not have 36  months service 
AB 

ths 

until June 1992. 

There are no substantive errors materially prejudicing the rights of  the 

4 .  
respondent in this matter.  However, the following is noted: 

a. 

The notification letter to AB 
separation authority will decide both whe 
Air Force, and decide what his service ch 
considered to be harmless error because A 
eligible f o r  a general discharge, and tha 
recommended by his commander. 
have discussed that with him. 

does not inform him that the 
is to be separated from the 
ation will be.  This is 
was notified that he was 
a1 discharge was in fact 

Furthermore, his military legal counsel should 

b. 

tion for the Article 15. 
does not appear in the narrative portion of the notification letter. 

The separation package does not include the underlying documenta- 
Moreover, it includes as  attachments evidence which 

c .  

It is my opinion that neither of  the above deficiencies are 

There is overwhelming documentation in this file that is 
legally significant. 
sufficient to justify discharge.  The respondent was clearly placed on notice 
about the evidence used to support the discharge recommendation. 
although this discharge package does not prejudice the respondent, the defic- 
iencies make f o r  a less-than-complete staff package should this matter require 
further review f o r   any reason. 

However, 

5. 

The following merit your  specific consideration: 
a. 

You must decide whether AB 

should be retained in the Air 

Force.  To that end, you must consider his entire record of service, including 
the specific reasons cited for his discharge. 

b. 

his service. 
his service. 

If you decide to discharge AB 

you must next characterize 
Again, you shoudd consider his entire record in characterizing 

(1) Since this is a notification action, AB 

may receive 

' 

only an honorable or general discharge, unless you choose to direct reinitiat- 
ion of  the action and refer the case to an administrative discharge board.  An 
honorable discharge is appropriate when an airman's service has generally met 
Air Force standards of performance and conduct. 
General discharge is proper 
when negative aspects of  performance or conduct significantly outweigh 
positive aspects of the airman's service. 

letters of c 
referral EPR.  AB 
dards, and h 

,entire record is marginal.  It is replete with 
nd, and an Ar-ticle 15.  His only EPR  w a s   a 
during his entire time at Sembach AB. 

eems unable o r  unwilling to meet Air Force stan- 

c .  

Finally, you  must consider whether to offer AB 
and rehabilitation (P&R).  Probation and rehabilitation is 
airmen who have demonstrated a potential t o  servg satisfactorily; who have the 
capacity to be rehabilitated to continued military service; and whose reten- 
nsistent with the maintenance of good order and 
tion on active 
discipline.  AB 
commander has recommended against offering him P&R. 
I concur.  His 
ord is 
progressive counseling measures.  There 
will respond favorably to P&R,  when he 
is no reason to believe that AB 
In light of this, there 
has not responded to any  lesser measures up t o  now. 
is no  reason to consider P&R  in this case. 
As %he special court martial convening authority in this case,  you may 
6. 
(1) retain AB- 
approve his separation with a general discharge; with o r  without P&R;  or ( 3 )  
Forward the case to the general court martial convening authority, recommend- 
ing separation with an honorable discharge; 

if vou determine that discharge is inappropriate; ( 2 )  

Recommendation:  I recommend vou  aDDrove AB 
-. - - - . -  - - - - - - - . - - 

7 .  
general discharge, without probation and rehabilitation, by signing the 
attached letter. 

discharge with a 

-  - - -  . -  - 

z 

* A  

- 

I 

I 

2 Atchs 
1.  Discharge Letter 
2.  Case File 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR  FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS 66TH COMBAT SUPPORT GROUP (USAFE) 

APO  N E W  YORK 09136-5000 

REPLY  TO 
ATTN  OF: 

SP 

SUBJECT: 

Notification Letter 

I’ 

1.  I  am recommending your discharge from the United  States Air Force for 
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 general. 

2.  My  reasons for this action are: 

a.  On 20 Sep 91, you were derelict in duty  in that you willfully  failed 

to report a government vehicle  accident.  You also, through neglect, suffered 
a government  vehicle accident by driving into a wall, causing damage to that 
military property  in the sum of  $401.23.  For this offense you received an Art 
15  (see atch). 

b.  On 24 Mar  91, you left your assigned post  without being properly 

relieved. 
counseling you about leaving your post. 

Moreover, you were disrespectful to TSgt -*when 

he was 

c.  On 30 Dec 90, while posted at site five, you were operating a 

government vehicle  off  the hardened  paved  surface.  Consequently, you were 
involved  in a vehicle mishap.  For this you received an LOR. 

J 

d.  On or about  16 Dec 90, you failed to maintain  control of your military 
working  dog, because you failed to follow instructions.  For this you received 
an LOR  and a UIF. 

f.  On  12 Dec 90, you also failed to follow instructions by  leaving your 

equipment  in such a way  that  it could have caused  injury or death to your MWD. 
For this you received a LOC. 

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 discharge 
or retained in the Air Force, and  if you are discharged, you will be 
ineligible  for reenlistment in the Air Force. 

3.  You h’ave the right to consult counsel.  Military  legal couniel has been 
obtai 
fm-  -- Bldg 206, 496-7405 on _3_-2egflat ,&L(I. 
civilian counsel at your own  expense. 

sist you.  I have made an appointment for you to consult 

You may  consult 

Right People.  Right Mission.  Right Now. 

4.  You have the right  to submit statements  in your own  behalf.  Any 
statements you want  the separation authority  to consider must  reach me within 
three workdays  of  receipt of  this letter unless you request and receive an 
extension for  good  cause shown.  I  will  send tsem 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.  You must report  to 
Sembach Clinic at -@,J5---- on - 2 x m I / ? L  

---------  for the examination. 

nal  information you furnish in rebuttal  is covered by  the Privacy 
as explained  in AFR  39-10, attachment 6.  A copy of  AFR  30-10 is 

3. 
4 .  

5. 
6. 

7. 

Atch 
Art  15 dtd  10 Oct 91 
Memo for Record dtd 
24 Mar 91 
LOR  dtd 8 Jan 91 
Memo  for Record dtd 
9 Jan 91 
LOR dtd  26 Dec  90 
Memo for Record dtd 
23 Dec 90 
Memo  for Record dtd 
17 Dec 90 
AF F o r m   1137 dtd 
28 Dec 90 
LOC dtd  15 Dee 90 

9 
1. 
2. 

8. 

9.