ATR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

 

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSN/SSAN

‘ AIC

 

 

 

    

PERSONAL APPEARANCE X RECORD REVIEW

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ee me NSEE SS “ec NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
YES NO
x
VOTE OF THE BOARD
HON GEN VOTHC OTHER DENY
XxX
x
xX
xX
x
ISSUES INDEX NUMBER EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
A95.00 A67.90 1 | ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2 | APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 | LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
HEARING DATE CASE NUMBER 4 | BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
- ete
17 Jan 03 FD2002-0263 COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS 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 with/without counsel, and the right to
submit an application to the AFBCMR.

‘

 

 

 

 

 

SIGNATURE OF BOARD FRESIDENT ,

i

      

“NDORSEMENT DATE: {7 Jan 03

 

 

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 FD02-0263

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 the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge,
and after a thorough review of the record, the Board was able to identify none that would justify a change of
discharge.

ISSUE: The applicant submitted no issues and requested that the review be completed based on the
available service record. 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 applicant had two
Article 15’s, one for refusing to return to correctional custody after being medically cleared to do so and
dereliction in the performance of her duties. The other one was for failing to maintain her weight/body fat
within standards in order to get out of an impending PCS assignment to Kunsan Air Base, Korea. This
second Article 15 was dismissed by the applicant’s Administrative Discharge Board. She also received two
Records of Individual Counseling for substandard job performance, unacceptable attitude and behavior, and
for having a poor attitude. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had
ample opportunities to change her negative/repetitive behavior. The Board concluded the disciplinary
infractions were a significant departure from the conduct expected of all military members. The Board
found no evidence of impropriety or inequity in this case on which to base an upgrade of discharge.

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
FD2002-0263

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD

ANDREWS AFB, MD

Raed (Former A1C) (HGH SGT)

1. MATTER UNDER REVIEW: Appl rec’d a GEN Disch fr USAF 95/07/28 UP AFR 39-10,
para 5-47b (Misconduct ~ Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline).
Appeals for Honorable Disch.

2. BACKGROUND:

a. DOB: 67/03/18. Enimt Age: 19 1/12. Disch Age: 28 4/12. Educ: HS DIPL.
AFOT: N/A. A-82, 5-88, G-82, M-57. PAFSC: 1C351 - Command and Control

Journeyman. DAS: 92/03/18.
b. Prior Sv: (1) AFRes 86/04/28 — 86/08/04 (3 months 7 days) (Inactive).

(2) Enlisted as AB 86/08/05 for 4 yrs. Extended 88/07/07
for 13 months. Extended 88/12/07 for 6 months. Svd: 3 yrs 9 months 3 dayS, all
AMS. AMN-(APR Indicates): 86/08/05-87/07/31. AI1C-(APR Indicates): 87/08/01-
88/07/31. SRA = 89/08/05. APRs: 9,9,9. EPRs: 4.

3. SERVICE UNDER REVIEW:

a. Reenlisted as SRA 90/05/07 for 6 yrs. Svd: 05 Yrs 02 MoS 21 Das, all
AMS.

b. Grade Status: AIC ~ 94/06/27 (Article 15, 94/06/27).
SGT - (EPR Indicates): 90/01/18-91/01/17.

c. Time Lost: None.

qd. Art 15’s: (1) 94/06/27, Holloman AFB, NM - Article 92. You, having
knowledge of a lawful order issued by Major ~----- to
submit to 30 days correctional custody, an order which
it was your duty to obey, did, on or about 10 Jun 94,
fail to obey same by wrongfully refusing to return to
correctional custody after being medically cleared to
do so. Further preliminary investigation has
disclosed that you, who knew of your duties, on divers
occasions between on or about 3 Jun 94 and on or about
8 Jun 94, were derelict in the performance of those
duties in that you negligently failed to conduct
yourself in a military manner at all times, to be
courteous in manner toward correctional custody
personnel, and to inform correctional custody managers
of possible health risks you have due to illness
and/or allergy, and also to refrain from using a
telephone to make personal calls without the
permission of a correctional custody manager and from
FD2002-0263

applying starch to any clothing item Except your Battle
Dress Uniform pockets so as not to cause an allergic
reaction, as it was your duty to do. Reduction to Alc,
suspended forfeiture of $552.00 pay per month for two
months, and 30 days extra duty. (Appeal/Denied) (No
mitigation)

(2) 94/06/01, Holloman AFB, NM - Article 91. You, who
knew of your duties, on or about 3 May 94, were
derelict in the performance of those duties in that
you willfully failed to maintain your weight/body fat
within AFR 35-11 standards in order to get out of an
impending PCS assignment to Kunsan Air Base, Korea, as
it was your duty to do. Forfeiture of $55.00 pay per
month for two months and 30 days correctional custody.
(No appeal) (No mitigation)

e. Additional: RIC, 15 FEB 95 - Poor attitude.
RIC, 4 MAR 93 - Substandard job performance, unacceptable
attitude and behavior.

£. CM: None.

g.- Record of SV: 90/01/18 - 91/01/17 Det OL (USAFE) 4 (Annual)
91/01/18 -— 92/01/17 Aviano AB 5 (Annual)
92/01/18 - 92/11/09 Holloman AFB 4 (CRO)
92/11/10 - 93/11/09 Holloman AFB 3 (Annual)
93/11/10 - 94/11/09 Holloman AFB 2 (Annual) REF

(Discharged from Holloman AFB)

h. Awards & Decs: AFCM, AAM, AFOUA W/BOLC, AFGCM W/BOLC, NDSM, SWASM
W/BSS, AFOSLTR, AFLSAR W/BOLC, NCOPMER W/1 BOLC, AFTR.

i. Stmt of Sv: TMS: (09) Yrs (03) Mos (01) Das
TAMS: (08) Yrs (11) Mos (24) Das

4. BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW: Appin (DD Fm 293) dtd 02/06/10.
(Change Discharge to Honorable)

NO ISSUES SUBMITTED.

ATCH
None.

02/09/26/ia
po2022- OZOD

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

HEADQUARTERS 49TH FIGHTER WING (ACC)
HOLLOMAN AIR FORCE BASE, NEW MEXICO

 

30 June 1995
MEMORANDUM FOR 49 FW/CC
FROM: 49 FW/JA

SUBJECT: Legal Review of AFI 36-3208 Administrative Discharge Board

Proceedings of ee

1, SUMMARY: In a proceeding conducted on 16-17 and 23-24 March 1995, a board of
officers found two of the allegations against respondent, were
substantiated, and determined she should be discharged from the United States Air Force (AF)
with a general service characterization. On 21 October 1994, 49 MSS/CC recommended
respondent be administratively discharged for misconduct under the provisions of AFR 39-10,
Section H, Paragraph 5-47b, specifically, for conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. He
recommended respondent be separated with a general service characterization, without probation
and rehabilitation (P & R). Pursuant to AFR 39-10, paragraph 6-19a, I reviewed the record of the
board proceedings and found it legally sufficient to support the board’s findings and

recommendations. Thus, I recommend you approve the findings of the administrative discharge
board.

 

2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

a. Respondent enlisted in the AF on 5 August 1986. Her current term of enlistment,
for 6 years, commenced on 7 May 1990. She has been assigned to the 49 MSS since 26 August
1993. On 26 June 1994, as a result of Article 15, UCMJ, punishment, for failure to obey a lawful
order, respondent was reduced in grade from Senior Airman to Airman First Class, (Although 49
MSS/CC’s 21 October 1994 recommendation, and other documentation included in this discharge
file, incorrectly indicate respondent’s demotion was effective 26 July 1994 instead of 27 June
1994, the administrative inaccuracy does not affect the legal sufficiency of this discharge action.)

b. Respondent is entitled to wear the AF Training Ribbon, the National Defense
Service Medal, the AF Longevity Service Award, and the NCO Professional Military Education
Ribbon.

GHobal Poorer for America
fozCeZ- S25

c. She received the following overall evaluations on her EPRs and APRs:
Period thru Rating

10 Nov93. 9 Nov 94
10Nov92 9 Nov 93
18 Jan92. 9Nov92
18 Jan91 17 Jan 92
18Jan90 17 Jan 91
18 Jan89 17 Jan 90
1 Aug 88 = 17 Jan 89
1 Aug 8&7 31 Jul 88
5 Aug86 31 Jul 87

owe kh hus WY bo

d. On 21 October 1994, 49 MSS/CC recommended respondent be administratively
discharged for misconduct under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Section H, Paragraph 5-47b,
specifically, for conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. He recommended respondent be
separated with a general service characterization, without probation and rehabilitation (P & R).
His 21 October 1994 notification to respondent of such recommendation was amended on 2
November 1994, in order to advise respondent that the worst possible characterization she could
receive was an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (VOTHC) characterization, Respondent
acknowledged receipt of the amended notification and made her election to present her case to a
board of officers on 2 and 3 November 1994, respectively. Pursuant to paragraph 6-2b,
respondent was entitled to a board hearing because she had served over six years of active military
service. On 15 March 1995, the government’s representative (GR) notified respondent of the
time, date, and place of the hearing. Respondent acknowledged receipt of said information on 16
March 1995.

e. Since this discharge action was initiated prior to AFI 36-3208 arriving at Holloman
AFB, New Mexico and thus superseding AFR 39-10, the Legal Advisor correctly determined
these proceedings were governed by the provisions of AFR 39-10 instead of AFI 36-3208.
Moreover, he also determined that the 15 March 1995 Notification of a Board Hearing Letter to

respondent was sufficient to notify respondent of the pending hearing although it referenced AFI
36-3208 instead AFR 39-10,

3. ALLEGED BASIS FOR THE DISCHARGE ACTION:

a. On or about 3 May 1994, at or near Holloman AFB, NM, respondent, who knew
of her duties, was derelict in the performance of those duties in that she willfully failed to maintain
her weight/body fat within AFR 35-11 standards in order to get out of a pending PCS assignment
to Kunsan AFB, Korea, as it was her duty to do.
[PZ2AZ- O2ZEZ

b. On or about 10 June 1994, at or near Holloman AFB, NM, respondent, having
been issued a lawful order by o submit to 30 days correctional custody,
an order which was respondent’s duty to obey, failed to obey such order by wrongfully refusing to
return to correctional custody after being medically cleared to do so,

Cc. On or about 3 June 1994, at or near Holloman AFB, NM, respondent, who knew
of her duties, was derelict in the performance of those duties in that she negligently failed to
conduct herself in a military manner at all times; to be courteous in manner toward correctional
custody personnel; and to inform correctional custody managers of possible health risks she had
due to illness and/or allergy; and also to refrain from using a telephone to make personal calls
without the permission of a correctional custody manager and from applying starch to any
clothing item except her Battle Dress Uniform pockets so as not to cause an allergic reaction; as it
was her duty to do.

4. EVIDENCE FOR THE GOVERNMENT:

a. In addition to the documents discussed in previous paragraphs, including their
respective attachments, the government submitted the following documentary evidence:

(1) ~— Anaffidavit from seeattRrpenEr er ei in which he states he did
not have personal knowledge of much of the present case, but he did observe several instances of

“unprofessional” telephone conduct exhibited by respondent. Further, he recalled several
commanders’ complaints of unprofessional behavior were traced to respondent. F inally, eat
Seep tated sinced@@j@agie was the OIC of the Command Post Operators, it was his job to

address these complaints with the respective offender. He opined that perhaps due to various

counseling sessions regarding the complaints, respondent believed ad a grudge
against her (Gov Ex 10).

(2) | The government also entered into evidence many documents relating to the
Air Force Weight Management Program and respondent’s specific documents regarding her
participation in the program (Gov Exs 11-13, 16).

(3) Also entered into evidence were two AF Forms 174, Record of
Counseling, regarding her unprofessional behavior during a SAV and over the telephone and her
negative attitude (Gov Ex 15, 42, respectively).

(4) Further, the government submitted copies of respondent’s Article 15s,
UCM, AF Forms 3070, and their attachments and related documents, such as the AF Form 1137,

UIF Summary (Gov Exs 17, 36, 39, 44, 45).
fV2Z0e2 — ORGS

(5) | The government also included all the correctional custody documentation,
including the medical examinations, her refusal to return to the facility, her understanding of the
rules, her progress therein, and her counseling sessions, (Gov Exs 19-28, 31-35, 37-38).

(6) The government entered into evidence a copy of her orders to Kunsan
(Gov Ex 43).

(7) Finally, the government entered a redacted statement Reem err el
regarding his observations of respondent’s unprofessional conduct and negative attitude. Therein
he states she was competent in her work but displayed a negative attitude toward authority (Gov
Ex 46).

b. The following witnesses testified for the government:

qd)