AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVTEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE 

CASE NUMBER 

FD2002-0069 

I 

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and to change his reenlistment 
code. 

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

v a- 

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

FINDINGS.  Upgrade of discharge 

and - change of reenlistment  code are denied 

I 

_- 

- 

-  4- 

justify a change of the discharge. 

The Board  finds  that  neither  the  evidence  of  record  or that  provided  by  the  applicant  substantiates  an 
inequity or impropriety that&uld 
Issues.  Applicant  was  discharged  for  minor  disciplinary  infractions.  FQ  had  B Record  of  Individual 
Counseling and three Letters of Reprimand.  His misconduct included three instances of underage drinking, 
two instances of failure to go, one instance of speeding and driving recklessly, resulting in an accident, and 
assault against a civilian. Member had no Enlisted Performance Reports during his period of service.  At the 
time  of  the  discharge,  applicant  consulted  counsel  and  submitted  a  statement  in  his  own  behalf 
acknowledging  it  might  have been mutually  beneficial  to he and the Air Force if he were to separate, but 
noting that  an administrative discharge was not  appropriate because he disputed the incidents used  as it's 
basis.  At the time of the discharge, the Staff Judge Advocate thoroughly  addressed these issues in the legal 
review that  accompanied the discharge package to the decision  authority.  The Board found the personnel 
and  discharge  records  indicate  member  was  given  adequate  opportunity  to  improve  and  conform  his 
behavior to Air Force standards and  was  either unwilling  or unable to do so.  Therefore,  no  inequity or 
impropriety was found in his discharge in the course of the records review 

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 fill 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 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 

ANDREWS AFB, MD 

(Former A1C)  (HGH A1C) 

FD2002-0069 

1.  MATTER UNDER REVIEW:  Appl rec’d a GEN Disch fr USAF 9 0 / 0 7 / 0 9   UP AFR 39- 10, 
para 5-46 (Misconduct -  Minor Disciplinary Infractions).  Appeals for Honorable 
Discharge and to Change the RE Code. 

*L -- 

2.  BACKGROUND: 

------ 

- 

-- 

a. DOB: 6 9 / 1 1 / 1 9 .  

Enlmt Age: 1 8   2 / 1 2 .   Disch Age: 2 0   7 / 1 2 .   Educ:HS DIPL. 

AFQT: N/A.  A-76,- E-61,  G - 5 2 ,   M-70. PAFSC: 41151A - Missile Maintenance 
Specialist. DAS: - 8 9 / m U 4 .  

-  - -  4- 

- -

 

b.  Prior Sv: (1) AFRes 8 8 / 0 1 / 2 9   -  8 8 / 1 2 / 0 6   (10 months 8  days) (Inactive). 

4 

3.  SERVICE UNDER REVIEW: 

a.  Enlisted as AB 8 8 / 1 2 / 0 7   for 4 yrs. Svd: 01 Yrs 07 Mo 03 Das, all AMs 
b.  Grade Status:  A1C -  9 0 / 0 4 / 0 7  
AMN -  8 9 / 0 6 / 0 7  

c.  Time Lost:  none. 

d.  Art 15’s: none. 

e.  Additional: LOR, 16 NOV 8 9   -  Failure to go. 

LOR, 16 NOV 8 9   -  Dereliction of duty. 
LOR, 19 MAR  9 0   - Dereliction of duty. 
LOR, 25 JUN 90  - Assault and underage drinking. 

f.  CM:  none. 

g.  Record of SV: none. 

_ _   L-r 

.-  - 

(Discharged from Vandenberg AFB) 

- 

- 

h.  Awards &  Decs:  AFTR. 
i.  Stmt of Sv:  TMS:  ( 0 2 )   Yrs  (05) Mos  (11) Das 
TAMS: (01) Yrs  ( 0 7 )   Mos  ( 0 3 )   Das 

_.I__. 

c___3 

4.  BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW:  Appln (DD Fm 2 9 3 )   dtd 0 2 / 0 2 / 1 1  

(Change Discharge t o  Honorable and Change the RE Code) 
Issue 1:  I’m interested in re-enlisting  into the Air Force &  I am having 

difficulties.  I have a RE Code of 2B and to re-enlist I need an upgrade RE code 

-. 

to a  1, a l s o   General to Honorable conditions. 

ATCH 
1. DD Form 149. 

rV-"" 

D E P A R T M E N T  

I S T  STR ATEGIC O F  THE 

H E A D Q U A R T E R S  

AIR F O R C  

A E R O S P A C E  

D I V I S I O N  ( S A C )   -a 

V A N D E N B E R G  AIR  F O R C E  B A S E ,  C A L I F O R N I A  93437-5000 

REPLY  TO 
ATTN  O F  

SUBJECT 

cc 

T O  

-  Administrative Discharge Action - 
394  ICBMTMS 

2 9 JUN  1990 

_-. rc- 

$&; 

I 
u - -  c m s ~ m l ~ *  

9 - 
4 
5 P 
e, 
(r % 

1. 

I  have reviewed t 

to the proposed discharge 

394  ICBMTMS. 

It i s  legally --- 

by letter on 25  June 1990  that he was 
from the Uni-ted States Air Force for 
0,  Section H, parag- 

5-46.  The 

The respondent acknowledged receipt of the letter of 

minor miscond 
misconduct included a failure 
o  incidents3 underage drinking, one 
of which led to an assault by 
on a civilian.  'Attempts to 
rehabilitate have included formal and informal counsellings and several letters 
of reprimand. 
The commander recommended a general discharge without probation 
and rehabi 1 itation. 
notification on 25  June 1990. 
The respondent is not entitled to a board hearing and this case is being 
3. 
processed by the notification procedure in Section B, Chapter 6 ,  AFR  39-10. 
The respondent was given written notice of the commander's recommendation for 
discharge, of the reasons for it and of the least favorable type of separation 
authorized, and given copies of the documents supporting the recommendation for 
discharge. 
counsel, to submit statements to the separation authority, and to waive either 
of these rights.  The respondent thereafter consulted counsel and submitted a 
written statement for your consideration. 

Further, the respondent was advised of the rights to consult 

In his written statement 
laims that he wver assaulted his 
4. 
sister- in- law, and provides 
s wife to 
nts from he 
at he never 
support his assertion.  Both 
sister-in-law; however, this is not what was alleged. 
admitted to 
his First Sergeant that, during an alcohol-related dis 
wife, he 
had shoved his sister-in-law in an effort to get her o 
se.  This 
not necessary  ---- 
admissianis-_sdXicient ta-establishthe  a1 leged a 
urther c 1 aims 
truck any actual blows. 
ed; however, he 
hrough the base housing 
for this incident and never chose to refute or 
respond to the allegations.  His claim that "it was not known at the time" that 
he was' speeding is plainly contradicted by the citation issued,Aich 
explicitly noted his speed.  Although the ticket does not note the use of 
radar , Security Pol ice patr 
trained in other methods of determining 
speed, such as pacing the v 
stion or noting the distance traversed 
and time elapsed.  Finally, 
claims that he believes he is not 

P e a c e .

.

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

~ 

_ _  

, 

-8 

. 

He was, however, 

The facts documented in the case file substantiate the allegations of 

qualified for world-wide duty because of his knee condition, and is therefore 
not medically eligible for discharge under AFR 39-10. 
examined by health care professionals at t 
pronounced ready for world-wide duty by Dr 
5. 
minor misconduct 
of disruptive be 
and discipline i 
conform his behavior to Air Force standards; it is precisely this decision that 
. .  
renders him subject to a general discharge.  Suspension of the discharge for  -- 
probation and 
rehabilitative efforts. 
6.  I n  accorcknce-Ath AFR 39-10, paragraphs 5-51 and 6-12, you may as the 
Special Court-Martial Convening Authority: 

been marked by repeated incidents 
' s  op i n ion jeopard i ze m - o d  order 
has apparently decided not to 

' s   not warranted due to failure o f   prior  - 

- 
Direct retention based on your determination that'the 

a 

evidence is 

.- 

' 

_- 

__ 

A- 

a. 

insufficient to support discharge; 

b.  Refer the case to 15th AF with a recommendation for honorable service 
characterization with or without a suspension of discharge for probation and 
rehabilitation; or 

c.  Direct discharge with a general service characterization with or 

without suspension of the discharge for probation and rehabilitation. 
7.  I  recommend you direct 
service characterization and no offer of Drobation and rehabilitation.  A 

discharge with a general 

ature is at Attachment 2. 

Chief, Military Juzice 

in, USAF 

2 Atch 
1.  Case File 
2. Proposed Ltr 

1~ I-  concur. 

'i' D E P A R T M E N T  OF THE AIR FOR&(. 

-  rb"iP-uL- 

v 

394TH ICBM T E S T  M A I N T E N A N C E  S Q U A D R O N  ( S A C )  

V A N D E N B E R G  A I R   F O R C E  B A S E ,  C A L I F O R N I A   93437-5000 

REPLY  TO 
A r r N .   OF: 

SUQJECT: 

Letter of Notification 

yf& 

c 

,&rlrurto* 

--. 

,Pt5 

J 

4 
;? 

0 oc, 

5' 

4%tW  M .#E'* 

I  am recommending your discharge from the United States Air Force for minor 
1. 
misconduct.  The authority for this action is AFR  39-10,  Section H,  paragraph  --  - 
is approved, your service will be characbrized as 
5-46.  If my- 
honorable or general.  I  am recommending that your service be characterized as 
general. 

' 

2.  My reasons for this action are: 

._ 

_.. 

~ -  d 

A- 

a.  You did, at or near Vandenberg Air Force Base,'California, on or about 
1 November 1989,  without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to your 
appointed place of duty, to wit:  Building 5601. 
Article 86  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). 
Letter of Reprimand on 16  November 1989. 

By this act you violated 
You received a 

b.  You who knew of  your duties at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, 
were, on or about 31 October 1989,  derelict in the performance of those duties 
in that you willfully consumed alcoholic beverages, while under the age of 21 
as it was your duty not to do. 
received a Letter of Reprimand on 16  November 1989. 

This violates Article 92  of the UCMJ, you 

c. 

You who knew of your duties at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, 
on or about 1 March 1990,  were derelict in the performance of  those duties in 
that you negligently failed to operate a vehicle in a safe manner, by driving 
35 mph  in base housing, a 25  mph zone, as it was your duty not to do.  A Letter 
of Reprimand was issued to you on 19  March 1990  for violating Article 92  of the 
UCMJ. 

d.  You  did, at or near Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, on  or about 
9  June 1990,  assault your sister-in-law by striking her with your hand. 
You 
committed this offense under the influence of alcohol, which you then were not 
of legal age tqconsume. 
By these acts, you violated Articles 128  and 92  of 
the-ttlriWo~m-XodFof Mi 1 itaq3mti-a; 
You received- a Letter of Reprimand on 
25 June 1990. 
Copies of the documents to be forwarded to the separation 
of this recommendation are attached.  The commander exerc 
Court-Martial jurisdiction or a higher authority wi 11 dec 
be discharged or retained in the Air Force.  If you  are d 
inelisible for reenlistment in the Air Force. 

authority in support 
sing Special 
de wnether you wi 11 
scharged, you  will be 

* 

__ 

P e a c e ,

.

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

3.  You have the right to consult counsel. Military legal counsel has been 

you.  I  have made an appointment for you to consult Captain 
Area Defense Counsel, Building 8220, Vandenberg AFB, phone 
25 June 1990. 

You may consult civilian counsel at your own expense. 

You have the right to subm t statements in your own behalf.  I will forward 

You may request that a different military 
defense counsel represent you, if that counsel is reasonably available as 
defined by AFR  111-1. 
4. 
your statements to the separat on authority. 
Any statements youw.nt me to 
forward must reach the Separat ons Processing Center, Room B-308, Building 
10577, Vandenberg AFB, by 28 June 1990 unless you request and receive an 
extefis-ion for good cause shown. 
the Separatio- 
5.  If you fail to consult counsel or to submit statements in your own behalf, 
your failurcwilhoonstitute a waiver o f  your right to do-so. 
6.  Any personal information you furnish in rebuttal is-covGd by the Privacy 
Act Statement as explained in AFR  39-10, attachment 6.  A  copy o f   AFR 39-10 is 
available for your use in the Separations Processing Center. 
7.  You must execute the attached acknowledgment and return to me immediately. 
The acknowledgment does not admit or deny any of the allegations against you, 
nor does it mean that you agree with the discharge action. 
acknowledgment that you have received this Letter of Notification. 

You must submit your request for extension to. ___ 

ter -in a timely manner. 

- 

It is simply an 

Atch 
1-LOR, 16 NOV  89. 
2-LOR, 19 Mar 90. 
3-LoR, 25 Jun 90. 
4-0t her I nf 0.