“X RECORD REVIEW one

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

 

A67.10, A67.50
2 [| APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
a | LETTER OFNOTIFICATION a”

eae a BRIEF OF PERSQNNEI. FILE -

FD2002-0018 | (omeawaaAsee Nimans

ADDITIONAL EXHIGITS SUBMITTED AT TIME af
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

  

 

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING
MAS
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to
submit an application to the AFBCMR ~~

   

SAF/MIBR SECDETARV OF THT am EADrE PFECANNEL COUNCIL
5$0C STREET WEST , SUITE 40 AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
i RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78250-4742 4538 COMMAND DR, EE WMG, 3” FLOOR
— Soe -— , ANDREWS.SAB MD 20262-7902 |

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 (EF-V2)SOCOCOSOSO””~C*C*«#é revo s edition willl be: used.

FAN Trane neeeene eID EE ete eee
CASENU MBER

FbD2003-0018

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

ee

4 Fhe attached brief eentains the available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors hendifge-to the
discharge. . =

FINDINGS: Upgrade is denied.

The board finds that neither the 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. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The information provided
by the applicant and contained in his records was carefully reviewed by the DRB. The records indicated the
applicant received two Article 15s, four Letters of Reprimand and two Letters of Counseling for
misconduct. The misconduct included failure to go and failure to obey a lawful-order. The DRB opined
that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative
behavior. The Board concluded the-misconduct outweighed the otherwise satisfactory performance of this
member. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

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 of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment:
Examiner's Brief
FD2002-0018
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
ANDREWS AFB, MD

(FormerAlC) {HGH SRA)
—— — -

oe

 

i+ MATTER UNDER_REVIEW: Appl rec'd a GEN Disch fr USAF 00/08/10 UP RET 36-3208,
para 5.49 (Misconduct - Minor Disciplinary Infractions). Appeals forHonorable

Disch.
2. BACKGROUND:

a. DOB: 73/03/26. Enlmt Age: 23 11/12. Disch Age: 27 4/12. Eduo:Hs DIPL.
AFOT: W/A. A-92, E-86, G-88, M-90. PAFSC: 2A353B - Tactical Aircraft ,

Maintenance Journeyman. DAS: 97/10/28,

b. Prior Sv: (1) AFRes 97/03/05 - 97/03/11 (7 days) (Inactive).

3. SERVICE UNDER REVIEW:

a. Enlisted as Alc 97/03/12 for 4 yrs. Svd: 03 Yrs 04 Mo 29 Das, all AMS.

b, Grade Status: Alc - 00/06/01 (Article 15, 00/06/o0t)
SRA - 99/07/12

c. Time Lost: none.

d. Art 15's: (1) oo/oé6é/o1, Hill AFB, UT - Article 86. You did, on or
about 19 May 06, without authority, fail to go at the
time prescribed to your appointed place of duty.
Reduction to Alc. (Appeal/Denied) (Nomitigation)

(2) 99/11/15, Hill AFB, UT - Article 86. You did, om 22
Oct 99, without authority, fail to go at the time
prescribed to your appointed place of duty. Reduction
to Alc (suspendeduntil_14 May 00), forfeiture cf

$150.00 pay per month for 2 months (suspendeduntil 14
May 60), and 10 days extra duty. (No appeal) (No

mitigation)

me Additional: TOR, 28 DEC 99 - Failure to obey a lawful order.
LOR, OF DEC 99 - Failure to go.
LOR, 08 SEP 99 - Failure to go.
LOR, 27 AUG 99 - Failure to go.
Loc, 15 JUN 99 - Failure to go.
Loc, 21 DEC 98 - Failure to go.

1,

£. CM: none.

g. Record of SV: 97/03/12 - 98/10/31 Hill AFB 4 (HAF Dir)
FD2002-0018
98/11/01 - 99/10/31 Hill AFB 2 (Annual) REF
(Discharged from Hill AFB)

h. Awards & Decs: AFOUA, AFEM, AFTR.

Serre ee “=
i. Stmt of Sv: TMS: {03) Yrs (05) Mcs (06) Das =
— — TAMS: {03) Yrs (04) Mos (29) Das ee

4, BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW: Appln (DD Fm 293) dtd 01/05/28.
(Change Discharge to Honorable)

Issue 1; I would like to thank you for considering this petition to upgrade
my discharge. I have little additional information to present to you. I would
point out that there are inconsistencies in my record that-I feel should be
emphasized. They are follows:

1. I experienced a period of depression that forced me to ask for psychological
assistance. I was then placed on prescribed medication - which had a side
effect on my physical wellness and caused chronic fatigue. Yet when a Command
Directed Evaluation was performed, nothing was found wrong. The CDC was
performed after being medicated for a month and the medication was not stopped.
The fatigue was directly responsible for my tardiness, which..was in turn.
responsible for my first Article 15.

2. It was and is my belief that the second Article 15 that was imposed as non-
judicial punishment for being late was not completely thought out. My rebuttal
could not have been given full consideration as I handed it in at 1900 hrs and
the decision was announced at 1400 hrs on the same day. The decision was
rendered by a newly assigned commander, whom I had never even met. I feel the
decision was determined before I set foot in the office to hear my rights.

J take full responsibility for any mistakes IT have made. I also do not want to
question my chain of command. I do, however, question why, when an airman shows
integrity and honor, his opinion and his counsel's opinion are ignored.

I point out for the record that I was never given the copies I asked for (and
have the rights to) of all documents that were filed as part of my appeal. TI
also would like to know why a rebuttal to my rebuttal was allowed and submitted
during the appeal process. My opinion and that of my counsel is that the
Squadron had made their case and I had made mine. We did not believe that there
were to be additions after I had stated my case. Fairness was lacking, in my

 

— option, — ==
I am prepared to adcept your decision and feel confident that the decision will
be just.

Thank you for your time and consideration.
FD2002-0018

ATCH
1. Applicant's Issues.

02/04/09/ia

iA ee ieee / Ee
é Ai F02e0x- 00/5

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE me —_
HEADQUARTERS OGDEN AIR LOGISTICS CENTER (AFMC)

HILL AIR FORCE BASE, UTAH

 

20 July 2000

Seiaasie: is i a ae area coe .
MEMORANDUM FOR 75 ABW/CC = .

amet

 

 

FROM: OO-ALCIJA

SUBJECT: Administrative
= 4 ES)

 

 

1. Thave reviewed the attached discharge package concemingg@ a
find it legally sufficient.

2. Background: On 28 June 2000, the 34” Fighter Squadron Commander notified the respondent that he
was recommending the respondent’s discharge firm the Air Force for minor disciplinary infractions,
under AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.49. In his 6 July 2000 memorandum, the commander

recommends you dischargethe respondent with a general discharge.

3. Evidence for the Commander: The evidence supporting the commander’ srecommendation consists of
the following:

a. Onor about 19 May 2000, the respondent failed to report to his appointed place of duty at the
time prescribed, For this misconduct, he received an Article 15,.dated 1 June 2000. (Atch la)

__b. Onor about 28 December 1999, the respondent failed to obey an order given to him bys
ii provide documentation conceming a veterinarian bill. For this misconduct, he received a
Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 28 December 1999. (Atch Ib)

c. Onor about 7 December 1999, the respondent failed to report to his appointed place of duty at
the time prescribed. For this misconduct, he received an LOR, dated 7 December 1999. (Atch 1c)

d. Onor about 22 October 1999, the respondent failed to report to his appointed place of duty at the
time prescribed. For this misconduct, he received an Article 15,dated 15 November 1999 which was

placed in his existing Unfavorable Information File (UIF), (Atch 1d)

—_— e. On or about 2 September-1999,the respondent failed to report to his appointed place of duty at the
time prescribed. For this misconduct, he received an LOR, dated 8 September 1999 and a UlP*was
established dated 15 October 1999. (Atch le)

f. On or about 26 August 1999, the respondent failed to report to his appointed place of duty at the
time prescribed. For this misconduct, he received an LOR, dated 27 August 1999. (Atch If)

g. Onor about 10June 1999 and again on or about 14 June 1999, the respondent failed to report to
his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed. For these acts of misconduct, he received a Letter of

Counseling (LOC), dated 15June 1999, (Atch Ig)
i a FD 2202~ 20/9

h. On or about 16 December 1998 and again on or about 21 December 1998, the respondent failed to
report to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed. For these acts of misconduct, he received an

LOC, dated 21 December 1998,

4. Evidence for the Respondent: The respondent sought legal counsel and submitted a written

-ommmemen-Statement for yaurconsideralion. ae .
-= 5. Errors or Irregularities: None =
— —_=

6. Discussion: Under AFED 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's conduct clearly meets this standard. The respondent has been late to work on 13 separate
occasions. For this misconduct, progressive disciplinary measures have been used in an attempt to
rehabilitate him. The respondent has received 2 LOCs, 3 LORs, and 2 Article 15s. However, despite
these rehabilitative efforts, the respondent has failed to conform his conduct. —

In the statement submitted by the respondentin response to this administrativedischarge action, he
attempts to minimize his chronictardiness and blame his supervisors for the imposition of the
administrative actions that have been taken against him. The facts, however, are clear. The respondent
has been repeatedly late, has been given ample opportunity to reform his conduct, and has failed to do so.
Further, therespondent's statement in paragraph 2d of his response that following his Article 15, dated 15
November, that there were no additional incidents for the next stx months, is inaccurate. Duringthat —,
time period, the respondent received an LOR for being late to work on 7 Dee 99 (Atch Ic), and an -
additional LOR for failing to obey a lawful order on 28 Dec 99 (Atch Ib). Finally, the respétident's
argument that his latest Article 15, dated 19 May, was improper is simply unfounded. He received the
Article £5 for failure to go. He was supposed to report to work at 0700 and did not call to state that he
was sick until 0715. The commander fairly imposed punishment, and the appellate authority
appropriately denied his appeal. The respondent has been given enough chances to conform to standards.
Administrative discharge is now appropriate.

The appropriate characterization of this discharge is general. Under paragraph 1.18.20f AFI 36-3208,
a general discharge is warranted when significant negative aspects of an airman's conduct or duty
outweigh the positive aspects of the airman's military record. In this case, the respondent's chronic

tardiness outweighs any positive aspects of his service.

: This discharge action was coordinated with the 388" OG Commander, Colonel

oordinatio
Mand he concurs.

     

7.

 
 
  

8. Options: As the Special Court-Martial Convening Authority, you have the following options:

a. Terminate this action by directing the respondent be retained in the Air Force.

—=
— ——

b. Recommend to the General Court-Martial Convening Authority that the respondent be discharged
with an honorable tharacterization, with or without P&R.

d. Order the respondent be discharged with a general discharge characterization, with or without an
offer of P&R.
é Ki FD Zo0Z - Pols

~

9. Recommendation: I recommend that you order the respondentbe discharged from the Air Force with

a general characterization, without P & R, under AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.49, minor disciplinary
. infractions. — . _

 

 

Attachment:
Case File
‘oe (Wo {fF D2002- co/F

  

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS 388" FIGHTER WING (ACC) -
HILL AIR FORCEBASE, UTAH

FROM: 34 FS/CC

SUBJECT: Notification Letter

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

2. My reasons for this action are:

a. On or about 19 May 2000, you failed to report to your appointed place of duty at the time
prescribed. For this misconduct, you received an Article 15,dated 1 June 2000. (Atch la)

b. On or about 28 December 1999, you failed to obey an order given to you by Gj

eee: > provide documentation concerning a veterinarian bill. For this misconduct, you
received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 28 December 1999, (Atch Ib)

ec. Onor about 7 December 1999, you failed to report to your appointed place of duty at the
time prescribed. For this misconduct, you received an LOR, dated 7 December 1999. (Atch 1c)

d. On or about 22 October 1999, you failed to report to your appointed place of duty at the
time prescribed. For this misconduct, you received an Article 15, dated 15 November 1999
which was placed in your existing Unfavorable Information File (UIF). (Atch 1d)

e. On or about 2 September 1999, you failed to report to your appointed place of duty at the
time prescribed. For this misconduct, you received an LOR, dated 8 September 1999 and a UIF
—— =" was established dated 15 October 1999, (Atch le) _ =

 

f. On or about 26 August 1999, you failed to report to your appointed place of duty at the
time prescribed. For this misconduct, you received an LOR, dated 27 August 1999. (Atch 1f)

g. On or about 10June 1999 and again on or about 14June 1999, you failed to report to
your appointed place of duty at the time prescribed. For these acts of misconduct, you received a

Letter of Counseling(LOC), dated 15 June 1999. (Atch Ig)
a“ ee | a F0202-0075-

o -

h. On or about 16 December 1998 and again on or about 21 December 1998, you failed to
report to your appointed place of duty at the time prescribed. For these acts of misconduct, you
received an LOC, dated 21 December 1998. oo

3. Copies of the documents to be forwarded to the separation authority in support of this
recommendation are attached. The commander exercising SPCMjurisdiction or a higher
a ~ “authority Wil determine Whether you will be discharged or retained in the Air Fore@gid' if you
“a _ are discharged, how your service will be characterized. If you are discharged, you “ill be
tbe “+. ineligible for Mflistment i in the Air Force. mo

 

tr

4. 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 with the Area Defense Counsel anit ::
building 1205, on ‘ean: . You may consult civilian counsel at your own
expense. _

§. You have the right to submit statements in your own behalf. Any statements you want the

separation authority to consider must reach me by _5 3vkg o¢, unless you request and receive an
extension for good cause shown. I will send them to the separation authority.

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

7. You have been scheduled for a medica! examination. You must report to the physical exam
section of the base clinic on ,between 1300 and 1500 for the examination.

8. Any personal 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 orderlyroom.

  

Attachments: om
1. a. AF Form 3070, dtd 1 Jun 00/Reponse
b. LOR, dtd 28 Dec 99
c. LOR, did 7Dec 99 ~ .
RaRaRinetas aon more BET BIO! Gea NOV 99 Pe Latent SU oir atate teenage ait ene
e. LOR, dtd8 Sep 99, AF Form 1058, dtd 15 Oct 99
f. LOR, dtd 27 Aug 99
g. LOC, dtd 15 Jun 99
h. LOC, dtd 21 Dec 98
2. Airman’sReceipt of Notification Letter