MOAN Ray eee ee | f

TYPE | ff ~
| X PERSONAL APPEARANCE RECORD REVIEW

] NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION " ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

 

  

 

 

NOTES! OF THE OA

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ISSUES | INDEX NUMBER

A92.36 A67.10

 

El CR URETS SUBMITTED TO-TIE BOARD OL.
ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

 

 

 

 

| HEARING DATE ° ~ "CASE NUMBER

1
2
3 | LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4
5 SEP 02 FD2002-0247

BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE

COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD

“ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIMEOF =|
PERSONAL APPEARANCE .

 

 

 

 

 

 

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL AREERANEE HEARING ©

 

 

 

REMARKS
Case heard at Andrews AEB, MD

.

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

e

 

SIGNATURE OF BOARD PRESIDENT

 

 

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

 

 

 

ANDRES AGE. MD 20762-7002
AFHQ FORM 0-2077,JAN00.™” “(EF-V2) Previous edition will be used.
CASE NUMBER

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD2002-0247

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable, change of reason for
discharge and change of reenlistment eligibility code.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, at
Andrews AFB, MD on September 5, 2002. The following witnesses also testified on the applicant’s
behalf: Mrs. @ (his wife) and Mrsffjj (his mother).

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing:
Exhibit 6: binder containing 129 pages of documentation.

FINDINGS: The discharge is upgraded to Honorable, and the reason for discharge is changed to
secretarial Authority.
Change of reenlistment code is denied.

The Board finds that evidence of record and that provided by the applicant substantiates an injustice that
justifies upgrade of the discharge.

ISSUES: The applicant’s issues are listed in the attached brief. The applicant contends that his discharge
was inequitable because he was singled out as a result of cultural differences with his supervisors and
received disciplinary action for minor infractions other airman were not disciplined for. He feels the
positive aspects of his career outweighed the negative aspects and that he was not given due process during
his discharge process. The record indicates the applicant received an Article 15 for making a false official
statement and willfully disobeying an order to report. In addition, the applicant also received five Letters of
Reprimand for being late for duty, wearing an earring in uniform, failure to go, dereliction of duty and
being late for duty, one Letter of Admonishment for being disrespectful to an NCO, and a Letter of
Counseling for missing an appointment. After a thorough review of the record and listening to testimony
during this hearing, the Board concluded that the applicant had been singled out and was inequitably
disciplined for minor infractions. The DRB took note of the applicant’s duty performance as documented
by his performance reports, letters of recommendation and other information contained in the records. They
found that the positive aspects of the applicant’s duty performance outweighed the negative and concluded
that the characterization of the member’s service justified an upgrade to honorable. ‘The board concluded
that the basis for the Article 15 punishment was accurate and that the applicant was afforded proper duc
process during his discharge proceeding.

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. However
evidence of the record and testimony finds inequitable disciplinary action and service deserving of
characterization as honorable.

In view of the foregoing findings the Board further concludes that there exists an equitable basis for
upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should be changed to Honorable and the reason to
Secretarial Authority.

Attachment
Examiner's Brief
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD

ANDREWS AFB, MD
FD2002-0247

(Former A1C) (HGH SRA) (REHEARING)

 

1. MATTER UNDER REVIEW: Appl rec’d a Gen Dish fr USAF 98/02/17
UP AFI 36-3208, para 5.49 (Misconduct - Minor Disciplinary
Infractions). Appeals for HON Disch & Change Reason and Auth for

Disch.
2. OTHER FACTS:
a. See attached cy of Examiner’s Brief dtd 02/03/28.

b. The AFDRB reviewed case on 02/05/13 (non-appearance w/o
counsel) & concluded applicant’s discharge should not be changed.

3. BASIS ADVANCED FOR REHEARING: Appl (DD Fm 293) dtd 02/05/29.
(Change Discharge to Hon & Change Reason and Auth for Disch)

ISSUE 1: My discharge was inequitable because I was not treated
fair/equal to other Airmen within my squadron and the Air Force.

ISSUE 2: I was not given due process when being separated from
service due to time restraints of notice and discharge, which
failed to allow my request through the ADC to appear before the
base commander prior to separating and being discharged.

ISSUE 3: I was separated for minor infractions related to
incidents caused by initial discrimination based on orgin (sic)
when I PCS'’d to Ellsworth AFB, SD.

ISSUE 4: I had challenges with adaption (sic) to stateside duty
based on the minor infractions only at Ellsworth AFB, SD. I did
not receive any derogatory infractions @ any other assignment in
my military career. Note: Every infraction involved the same
individuals and only occurred at Ellsworth AFB.

ISSUE 5: My discharge was inequitable to characterize my
discharge as general due to above listed issues. And my positive

aspects of my career especially foreign duty achievements, as
well as accomplishments, out weigh the negative aspects.
FD2002-0247

Atch

Color Guard Award Certificate.

02/08/05/ai
FDRlcoz-° £4 7

FD2001-0516
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
ANDREWS AFB, MD

(Former A1lC) (HGH SRA)

 

1. MATTER UNDER REVIEW: Appl rec'd a GEN Disch fr USAF 98/02/17 UP AFI 36-3208,
para 5.49 (Minor Disciplinary Infractions). Appeals for Honorable Discharge and
a Change in Reason & Authority for Discharge.

2. BACKGROUND:

a. DOB: 76/03/13. Enlmt Age: 18 0/12. Disch Age: 21 11/12. Educ:HS DIPL.
AFOT: N/A. A-51, E-81, G-74, M-60. PAFSC: 3P031 - Security Apprentice.
DAS: 96/02/29.

b. Prior Sv: (1) AFRes 94/04/08 - 94/07/05 (2 months 28 days) (Inactive).

3. SERVICE UNDER REVIEW:

a. Enlisted as 94/07/06 for 4 yrs. Svd: 03 Yrs 07 Mo 12 Das, all AMS.

b. Grade Status: Al1C - 98/01/16 (Article 15, 98/01/16)
SRA - 97/07/06
Alc - 95/11/06
AMN - 95/01/06

c. Time Lost: none.

d. Art 15’s: (1) 98/01/16, Ellsworth AFB, SD - Article 107. You did, on
or about 31 Dec 97, with intent to deceive, make to
MSgt ------- , an official statement, to wit: you
stated you were at home in your on base quarters or
words to that effect, which statement was totally false
and was then known by you to be so false. Article 90.
You, having received a lawful command from Captain ----
---, your superior commissioned officer, then known by
you to be your superior commissioned officer, to
respond to his office no later than 1530 hours on 31
Dec 97, or words to that effect, did, on or about 31
Dec 97, willfully disobey the same. Reduction to Alc,
and a reprimand. (No appeal) (No mitigation)

e. Additional: LOA, 22 MAR 96 - Disrespect to an NCO.
LOR, 03 APR 96 - Late for duty.
LOR, 04 APR 96 - Wearing an earring in uniform.
LOC, 28 JAN 97 - Missed appointment.
‘LOR, 20 APR 97 - Failure to go.
LOR, 11 JUN $7 - Dereliction of duty.
LOR, 18 JUL 97 - Late for duty.
Fe200z- orf?

FD2001-0516

£f. CM: none.

gq. Record of SV: 94/07/06 - 96/10/15 Ellsworth AFB 4 (HAF Dir)
96/10/16 - 97/10/15 Ellsworth AFB 2 (Annual ) REF

(Discharged from Ellsworth AFB)

h. Awards & Decs: AFAM, AFTR, AFOSSTR, NDSM, SAEMR, AFEM, AFGCM.

i. Stmt of Sv: TMS: (03) Yrs (10) Mos (18) Das
TAMS: (03) Yrs (07) Mos (12) Das

4, BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW: Appln (DD Fm 293) dtd 01/11/09.
(Change Discharge to Honorable and Change the Reason & Authority for

Discharge)

Issue 1: My discharge was inequitable because the alleged disciplinary
infractions were very minor in comparison with the meritorious aspects of my
service record.

Issue 2: It was inquitable to separate me without a period of probation and
rehabilitation five months prior to the expiration of my enlistment, in light of
the minor nature of the alleged disciplinary infractions, the distance in time
between most of these incidents and the recommendation to discharge, and the

otherwise meritorious nature of my service.

Issue 3: It was inequitable to characterize my discharge as general when
positive aspects of my service outweighed its insignificant minor aspects.

Issue 4; See submission of Counsel attached to Brief.

ATCH

1. Submission of Counsel.

2. Memorandum for Department of Veterans Affairs.
3. Memorandum for Board of Discharge Review.

4. Two Letters of Recommendation.

02/03/28/ia
PD ZCOR~ ©2F7

 

 

U.S, AIR FORCE
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS 28" BOMB WING (ACC)
ELLSWORTH AIR FORCE BASE, SOUTH DAKOTA
=
1947 - 1997
09 FEB 898

 
 
 

MEMORANDUM FOR 28 BW/C

FROM: 28 BW/JA

 

SUBJECT: Legal Review - Notification Discharge: iggy

    

28" Security Forces Squadron, and find it legally sufficient to support discharge. | it also | |
‘supports 28 SES/CC's recommendation to separate Respondent with an under honorable
conditions (general) discharge without probation and rehabilitation (P & R).

2, On 27 Jan 98, 28 SFS/CC initiated this separation action pursuant to AFI 36-3208, paragraph
5.49, for misconduct involving minor disciplinary infractions (Tab D). On 4 Feb 98, Respondent
consulted legal counsel and submitted statements on his own behalf (Tabs H & K).

3. The reasons and supporting documentation for the proposed discharge action (TAB D) are:

a. On 22 Mar 96, Respondent made a mockery of an official military post check and was _~
disrespectful to an NCO by placing a pear in his mouth and leaving it there during the entire post
briefing. For this he received a Letter of Admonishment (LOA) on 22 Mar 96.

b. On 28 Mar 96, Respondent was thirty minutes late for duty. For this he received a
Letter of Reprimand (LOR) on 3 Apr 96.

c. On 3 Apr 96, while in uniform, Respondent was observed wearing an earring. At that
time AER informed Respondent that it was not an authorized uniform item. On 4 Apr

96 the Commander noticed that Respondent was wearing a healing posi garring in his ear. This

was in violation of AFI 36-2903 and constituted a direct violation of wemeeerder. For

this he received an LOR on 4 Apr 96.

  

 
  

d, On 27 Jan 97, Respondent missed an appointment for flight level training. For this
Respondent received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) on 28 Jan 97.

e. On 14 Apr 97, Respondent rao Tepart for duty. For this he received an LOR on
20 Apr 97. This established his Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

f. On 11 Jun 97, Respondent was derelict in the performance of his duties, as the
armorer, in that he failed to report to duty in time to ensure that the oncoming element was armed

Golden Legacy, Boundless Future. . Your Nation's Air Force
fF VROOZ- S247

and ready for duty. Respondent should have known that he would need to report early to ensure
that his duties were complete. For this he received an LOR on 11 Jun 97, and he was placed onto
the Control Roster.

g. On 12 Jul 97, Respondent was 42 minutes late for duty. For this he received an LOR
dated 18 Jul 97.

h. On or about 31 Dec 97, Respondent told qa that he was at home in
his on base quarters, or words to that effect. Subsequently, investigation revealed that his
statement was totally false and was known by him, on 31 Dec 97, to be so false. Moreover, his
~ superior commissioned officer Re ae him to report to his office no later than 1530
on 31 Dec 97, Respondent disobeyed . ; . For his actions,
he was punished under Article 15 of the UCM] c on 116 Jan 98. This Article 15 action was placed
in his UIF.

 

 
   

4. This case was properly processed under AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.49, for misconduct
involving minor disciplinary infractions. The facts of this case meet-the criteria for discharge
under this paragraph and section. Respondent’s service should not be characterized as honorable.
After considering all the facts in this case, the negative aspects of Respondent's conduct
outweigh the positive aspects of his military record. Respondent’s performance has not “been so
meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate” as required by AFI
36-3208, paragraph 5.48.4, for an honorable discharge. After considering all of the
circumstances, I concur with the commander’s determination that an under honorable conditions
(general) discharge is appropriate.

5. As the separation authority, you must consider probation and rehabilitation (P & R), and
Respondent, in his letter at Tab H, requests P & R. However, P & R is not appropriate in this
case. Respondent has received numerous opportunities to change his disruptive behavior. He
has received many forms of counseling including one LOA, one LOC, five LOR’s, and
punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ. These efforts at rehabilitation have not been
effective, and Respondent has not shown willingness to be rehabilitated until learning of this
discharge action. Respondent’s most recent incident of misconduct, described at 3(h) above,
calls into question Respondent’s integrity. Retaining Respondent in probation status would
degrade the good order and discipline of the unit.

6. As the Special Court-Martial Convening Authority, you may:
a. Direct that Respondent be retained; or

b. Direct that Respondent be separated with an under honorable conditions (general)
discharge, with or without P & R; or
| PD 2602-6247]

c. Direct that the case be heard by a discharge board; or
d. Recommend to 8 AF/CC that Respondent be separated with an honorable discharge,
with or. without = 71

RECOMMENDATION

   

7. Separate jain
(general) discharge, without P & R.

Attachment:
Case File
P2202 - 224-7

t

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS 28TH SUPPORT GROUP (ACC)
ELLSWORTH AIR FORCE BASE, SOUTH DAKOTA

 

MEMORANDUM FOR #4 27 JAN 1998

 

FROM: 28 SFS/CC

SUBJECT: Notification Memorandum

1. Iam recommending your discharge from the United States Air Force for misconduct involving minor
disciplinary infractions, The authority for this action is AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.49. If my
recommendation is approved, your service will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions
(general). | recommend that your service be characterized as under honorable conditions (general).

2. My reasons for this action are:

a. On 22 Mar 96, you made a mockery of an official military post check and were disrespectful to an
NCO by placing a pear in your mouth and leaving it there during the entire post briefing. For this you
received a Letter of Admonishment (LOA) on 22 Mar 96, .

b. On 28 Mar 96, you were thirty minutes late for duty. For this you received a Letter of Reprimand
(LOR) on 3 Apr 96.

c. On3 Apr 96, while in uniform, you were observed wearing an earring. At that time Ail
informed you that it was not an authorized uniform item. On 4 Apr 96 the Commander noticed that you were
wearing a healing post earring in your ear. This was in violation of AFI 36-2903 and constituted a direct

i an WeMorder. For this you received an LOR on 4 Apr 96.

 

d. On 27 Jan 97, you missed an appointment for flight level training. For this you received a Letter of
Counseling (LOC) on 28 Jan 97,

e. On 14 Apr 97, you failed to report for duty. For this you received an LOR on 20 Apr 97. This
established your Unfavorable Information File (UIF), and you were placed on the Control Roster.

f. On 11 Jun 97, you were derelict in the performance of your duties, as the armorer, in that you failed
to report to duty in time to ensure that the on-coming element was armed and ready for duty. You should have

known that you would need to report early to ensure that your duties were complete. For this you received a
LOR on 11 Jun 97,

g. On 12 Jul 97, you were 42 minutes late for duty. For this you were received an LOR dated 18 Jul
97, ‘This LOR was placed in your UIF,

  

h. On or about 31 Dec 97, you told aN What you were at home in your on base
quarters, or words to that effect. Subsequently, investigation revealed that your statement was totally false and
was known by you, on 31 Dec 97, to be so false. Moreover, your superior commissioned officer