AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSN/SSAN
: - SSGT
TYPE ‘
PERSONAL APPEARANCE X RECORD REVIEW
COUNSEL NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
VOTE OF THE BOARD
MEMBERS SITTING HON GEN UOTHC OTHER DENY
| X
Ft x
aul fi
a x
I ——T oT
a x
as Xx
ISSUES INDEX NUMBER EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
A94.05 A67,30 1 | ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
re
2 «+| APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
. 3 | LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
i ae —!
HEARING DATE CASE NUMBER 4 | BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
30 Oct 02 FD2002-0178 COUNSEL’S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXIHBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

 

 

 

 

 

_—
APPLICANT’S ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE.

 

 

REMARKS

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance, and the right to submit an application to
the AFBCMR.

 

SIGNATURE OF RECORDER A OF BOARD PRESIDENT

 

 

INDORSEMENT DATE: 30 Oct 02

 

 

TO: FROM:
SAF/MIBR SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3°” FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

 

 

 

 

 

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 (EF-V2) Previous edition will be used.
CASE NUMBER
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD02-0178

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: The applicant believes his discharge was too harsh as he was suffering from manic-depressive
illness. 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 was punished by a
Special Court Martial for being AWOL for a month, stealing currency (twice), and forged the signature of a
superior (twice). Applicant was sentenced to six months confinement, demoted to Staff Sergeant and fined
2/3 pay for six months. Applicant states that he was recently been diagnosed with manic-depressive illness
and believes his actions were the result of an undiagnosed medical condition. The Board found no evidence
of impropriety or inequity in this case on which to base an upgrade of discharge. The Board concluded the
applicant knew right from wrong. The misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his 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 ful] 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
FD2002-0178
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
ANDREWS AFB, MD

(Former SSGT) (HGH TSGT)

 

1. MATTER UNDER REVIEW: Appl rec’d a GEN Disch fr USAF 94/05/04 UP AFR 39-10,
para 5-49c (Misconduct - Commission of a Serious Offense). Appeals for Honorable
Disch.

2. BACKGROUND:

a. DOB: 53/05/01. Enlmt Age: 22 9/12. Disch Age: 41 0/12. Educ: HS DIPL.
AFOT: N/A. A-34, E-73, G-76, M-87. PAFSC: 3NO72 - Radio and TV Broadcasting
Craftsman. DAS: 91/12/31.

b. Prior Sv: (1) AFRes 76/02/12 - 76/05/11 (3 Mos 0 Days) (Inactive).

(2) Enlisted ag AB 76/05/12 for 4 yrs. Reenld 80/06/25 for 4
yrs. Reenld 84/06/26 for 6 yrs. Svd: 13 Yrs 11 Mos 7 Das, all AMS. AMN/AIC -
(APR Indicates): 76/05/12 -77/11/11. SRA - (APR Indicates): 78/05/25 - 79/05/24.
Sgt - (APR Indicates): 79/11/05 - 80/11/04. SSgt - (APR Indicates): 82/02/01 -
82/10/08. TSgt -. 89/10/01. APRS: 9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9.

3. SERVICE UNDER REVIEW:
a. Reenld as TSgt 90/04/20 for 6 yrs. Svd: 4 Yrs 0 Mo 14 Das, all AMS.
b. Grade Status: SSgt - 93/02/17 (SPCMO No 2, 92/06/25)
c. Time Lost: None. _
d. Art 15’s;: None.
e. Additional: None.
£. CM: SCM Order No 1. - 1993 March 16
CHARGE 1: Article 86. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty.

Specification: Did, on or about 7 Dec 1992, without authority,
absent himself from his unit, the 319 Bomb Wing, and did remain
so absent until on or about 5 Jan 93.

CHARGE II: Article 121. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty.

Specification 1: Did, at Grand Forks Air Force Base, North
Dakota, on or about 26 Jun 92, steal lawful currency, of a value
of $750.00, the property of the Civilian Distinguished Visitor
Program Account.
FD2002-0178

Specification 2: Did, at Grand Forks Air Force Base, North
Dakota, on or about 3 Dec 92, steal lawful currency, of a value
of $750.00, the property of the Civilian Distinguished Visitor

Program Account.
CHARGE III: Article 123. Plea: Guilty Finding: Guilty.

Specification 1: Did, at Grand Forks Air Force Base, North
Dakota, on or about 26 Jun 92, with intent to defraud, falsely

make the signature of ------~---- to a certain check in the
following words and figures, to wit: check number 123, dated 26
Jun 92, payable to the order of ---~------ , in the amount of

$750.00, drawn upon First National Bank, and signed -------
which said check would, if genuine, apparently operate to the
legal harm of another.

Specification 2: Did, at Grand Forks Air Force Base, North
Dakota, on or about 3 Dec 92, with intent to defraud, falsely

make the signature of ---------- to a certain check in the
following words and figures, to wit: check number 131, dated 3
Dec 92, payable to the order of --------- , in the amount of

$750.00, drawn upon First National Bank, and signed ------- 1

which said check would, if genuine, apparently operate to the
legal harm of another. Sentence adjudged on 17 Feb 93:

Confinement for 4 months, forfeiture of $1043.00 pay per month for
6 months, and reduction to the grade of E-5,.

q. Record of SV: 89/06/02 - 90/06/01 Lajes Field 4 (Annual)
90/06/02 ~- 91/06/01 Lajes Field 3 (Annual)
91/06/02 - 91/11/03 Lajes Field 3 (CRO)
91/11/03 - 92/11/02 Grand Forks AFB 5. (Annual)

(Discharged from Grand Forks AFB)

h. Awards & Decs: AFCM (20LCS), AFGCM (40LCS), NDSM, AFOSSTR (10LC),
AFOSLTR, AFLSAR (30LCS), NCOPMER, AFTR.

i. Stmt of Sv: TMS: (18) Yrs (2) Mos (23) Das
TAMS: (17) Yrs (11) Mos (23) Das

4. BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW: Appln (DD Fm 293) dtd 02/04/16.
(Change Discharge to Honorable)

Issue: In the winter of 1990 I began thy struggle with what I know today as
manic depressive illness. It's affected every aspect of my life. In December
of 1992 it cost me. my Air Force Career. In May 1994 after serving 18 years I
was discharged. In Dec 1992 during a manic episode, (I've just recently been
diagnosed with manic depressive illness) I forged a $700.00 check from an
unofficial checking account and took off across the country. I was AWOL for
nearly a month before I turned myself in. I had never done anything like this
before in my life. My military record was spotless, I faced a general court
martial and received, six month confinment (sic), the lose(sic) of one stripe,
FD2002-0178

forfitture (sic) 2/3 pay for six months. I served my sentance (sic) and did a
litle over four months because of good behavior. Next I faced an AFR 39-10
hearing. The decission (sic) was, six months probation after which my
performance would be evaluated & if it was acceptable I could serve till (sic)
retirement. The wing commander disregarded both the decission (sic) of the
court panel & AFR 39-10 panel and gave me a general discharge. My prior record
was spotless. The offences (sic) I committed were the result of an undiagnosed
medical condition. I belive (sic) I deserve an honorable discharge.

ATCH

1. Statement in Support of Claim

2. Medical Consultation Sheets

3, The Face of Bipolar Illness Document

02/08/09/cr
FD 2002. -O1 7k

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS AIR MOBILITY COMMAND

 

FROM: HO AMC/JA 6 December 1993
402 Scott Drive, Unit 3L2
Scott AFB IL 62225-5305

    
 

SUBJ: LEGAL REVI

TO: DPAFQ

1. On 25-26 May 1993, an AFR 39-10 administrative discharge board
was held at Grand Forks Air Force Base to consider whether
discharge was appropriate for Staff 4 7 ear
The allegations consisted of two acts of larceny and two” "Of

forgery. The board recommended Sergeant ‘be separated with

  
 

 

ean

-a general discharge, and that he be offered’ pro ation and
rehabilitation (P & R) with a conditional suspension of the
discharge. On 13 July 1993, the Commander, 319th Bomb Wing(ACC),
approved the board's recommendation that Sergean Yaga be
separated with a general discharge, but disapproved the board's
recommendation for P & R. Execution of the approved discharge was

 

withheld because Sergeanayem Mequested lengthy service
probation under AFR 39-10, “paragrap! 6-35.

3. This case was initially processed by Air Combat Command (ACC).
However, since Grand Forks Air Force Base is now part of AMC, a
recommendation from AMC/DP is appropriate. Before the case was
transferred to AMC, an excellent legal review was prepared by the
Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, ACC. We adopt that legal
review in its entirety, incorporate it by reference, and attach it
to the case file. ,

4. The case is legally sufficient to support discharge. The
respondent was found guilty of the offenses previously at a trial
by court-martial, and found by the board members to have committed -
each of the acts of larceny and forgery. We do note that the
defense counsel has provided another letter to AMC/DP and AFMPC,
IN TURN. Although the regulation does not specifically. allow
submission of such a letter, we recommend that you consider it and
give it what weight you consider appropriate. Nothing in the
letter causes me to question or recommend-any change to the legal
review of ACC.

5. The sole issue is whether sergean eis aie be offered
lengthy service probation. Although Sergeant: ecord,
citations, and character references all indicate very good
service, his actions in forging his supervisor's name and stealing
moneys for which his supervisor was responsible, especially after

previously committing the same offenses and being given a second
chance, indicate that he lacks the capacity to be rehabilitated.

AMC--GLoBAL REACH FOR AMERICA
[FP2002.- O17 &

Sergeant aaa was given a second chance and he failed. He is
not deserving of another in today's Air Force. His retention on

active duty would not be consistent with the maintenance of good
order and discipline.

6. We recommend that HO AMC/DP forward the case file to HO AFMPC
with the recommendation that lengthy service probation not be

offered.
[- 02.002 -O17§

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS AIR COMBAT COMMAND
LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, VIRGINIA

5 November 1993

est for Lengthy Service Probation lieipie

   

  
  
 
  

TO: DPAF
1. SYNOPSIS: We have reviewed the attached discharge action concerning
SSot Rae meg! S19 Mission Support Squadron, Grand

The case file is legally sufficient to support the

Forks A D
P from the Air Force without suspension for lengthy

separation 0
service probation.

2. BASIS FOR SEPARATION:
a. On 25 March 1993, 319 MSS/CC initiated discharge action against SSgt

Me pursuant to AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-49c, for t ssjon of a
serious offense. The discharge action stemmed Fron gli cons sion
of two separate incidents of larceny and forgery, for which he was tried and

convicted by special court-martial.

b. The evidence pr ed at the board indicated that in June 1992,
SSgt (then TSgt ere Jissatisfied with his job and home life, and
formulated a plan to abandon both his family and the Air Force. In order to

not deplete his personal savings or place a significant financial burden on
his family, eileen money from the Civilian Distinguished Visitor
(CDV) Program account maintained by the Public Affairs office in which he
worked. On 26 June 1992, scala a check from the CDV account,
made it out to himself in the amount of $750.00, forged the name of the Chief

of Public Affairs (¢ n the check, and then cashed it.
He subsequently had second thoughts about his actions and three days after

stealing the money, redeposited it into the CDV account. Approximately one to
Seeeeas confronted by his su cry isor, li,
é WMishad done. explaine s

 

    
  
 

two weeks later