, 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD 

1  GRADE 

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) 

- 

- -  - 

PERSONAL APPEARANCE 

MEMBER SITTING 

rssr'Es  A95.00 

- -  

INDEX NUMBER 

~ 6 7 . 9 0  

I 

I 

1 

I 

RECORD REVIEW 

I 

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL 

,Cd  "" 

" 

/ 

HON 

: .  voTFos;$,$@Bg#y 

I. * 

;p$jts 

GEN 

UOTHC 

1  OTHER 

I  DENY 

EXHBUS SUBMITTEDTO THE BOARD 

I 

- 

ORDER APPOMTMG THE BOARD 
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE 

BRlEF OF PERSONNEL FILE 
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD 

1  ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF 
1  PERSONAL APPEARANCE 
I  TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE 

I 

HEARMG DATE 
17 Sep 2003 

APPLICANT'S lSSUE 

CASE NUMBER 
FD-2001-0503 

THE BOARq'S DECISIQNAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE AnACHED AIR  FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIOW RATlONALE 

Case heard at Washington, D.C. 

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

,  .  ...-, '  .-' 
, 

. , .  
' 

, ,  ' ,  : , : : 3 ,   . 
. .^ 
. ..,I. 

. , , > " ' . '  

. 

, 

Y * ~ ,

 

. 

IN?ORsEMENT 
*.* 

- 

' 

TO: 

SAFIMRBR 
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78 150-4742 

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 

  I 

.

.

I FROM; 

1 

. . .. 

~  \ 

, 

. 

DATE:, .09/22/2003  ' ' 

. . 

. 

SECRETARY OF THE AIR  FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL 
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REMEW BOARD 
1535 COhIMAND D R  EE W N G .  3KD FLOOR 
ANDREWS AFB, ~ ~ ' 7 . 0 7 6 2 - 7 0 0 2  

Previous edition will be used 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE 

CASE NUMBER 

FD-2001-0503 

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable. 

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), at Andrews AFB, MD on 
17 September 2003. 

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: 

Exhibit 5:  Applicant's  contentions 
Exhibit 6:  Hand drawn map 

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

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of Discharge is denied. 

The  Board  finds  that  neither  the  evidence  of  record  nor  that  provided  by  applicant  substantiates  an 
impropriety that would justify  a change of discharge. 

ISSUE: 

Issue 1.  Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated 
the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand and Unfavorable Information File action, for commission of a 
serious offense by willhlly fleeing and eluding law enforcement officers, and reckless operation of a motor 
vehicle through Levy and Marion Counties, Florida, during a high speed pursuit.  Additionally, member was 
incarcerated for 18 days. The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct 
expectedof all military members.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found 
to be appiopriate. 

Issue 2.  Applies to the applicant's  post-service activities.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant 
was doing well and has a good job.  However, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or 
found in the course of the hearing. 

Issue 3.  Applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for a mistake he made when young. 
The DRB recognized the applicant was 23 years of age when the discharge took place.  However, there is no 
evidence he was immature or did not know right fiom  wrong.  The Board opined the applicant was older 
than the vast majority of first-tern members who properly adhere to the Air Force's  standards of conduct. 
The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the 
misconduct. 

CONCLUSIONS:  The  Discharge  Review  Board  concludes  that  the  discharge  was  consistent  with  the 
procedural and substantive requirements o f t he discharge regulation and w as w ithin the d iscretion o f t he 
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 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR  FORCE 

AIR  FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 

ANDREWS AFB, MD 

(Former SRA) (HGH SRA) 

1.  MATTER UNDER  REVIEW:  Appl rec'd  a GEN Disch fr USAF 97/03/20 UP  AFI 36- 
3208, para 5.52 (Misconduct -  Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline). 
Appeals for Honorable Disch. 

2.  BACKGROUND: 

a. DOB: 73/12/30.  Enlmt Age: 19 2/12.  Disch Age: 23 2/12. Educ:HS DIPL. 

AFQT: N/A.  A-58,  E-58,  G-42,  M-70. PAFSC: 2T251 -  Air Transportation 
Journeyman. DAS: 96/06/20. 

b.  Prior Sv: (1) AFRes 93/03/23 -  93/08/09 (4 months 7 days) (Inactive). 

3.  SERVICE UNDER REVIEW: 

a.  Enlisted as A1C 93/08/09 for 4 yrs. Svd: 03 Yrs 07 Mo 12 Das, of which 

AMS is 3 yrs 7 months 12 days  (excludes 18 days lost time). 

b.  Grade Status:  SrA -  95/12/27 

c.  Time Lost:  97/01/13 thru 97/01/30  (18 Days). 

d.  Art 15's:  none. 

e.  Additional: none. 

f.  CM:  none. 

g.  Record of SV: 93/08/09 -  95/06/14  Ramstein AB  4  (Initial) 

95/06/15 -  96/06/01  Anderson AFB  3  (CRO) 

(Discharged from MacDill AFB) 

h.  Awards &  Decs:  AFTR, AFOSSTR, AFOSLTR, NDSM, HSM, AFOUA, JMUA, AFGCM. 

i.  Stmt of Sv:  TMS:  (03) Yrs  (11) Mos  (10) Das 
TAMS: (03) Yrs  (06) Mos  (24) Das 

4.  BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW:  Appln  (DD Fm 293) dtd 01/05/18. 

(Change Discharge to Honorable) 

Issue 1:  I committed a gross error in judgement once.  Supporting 

documentation shows that I served honorably throughout my term of enlistment, 
and performed my duties without allowing personal problems to interfere with 
them. 

Issue 2:  The civil offenses were adjudicated and all except two, Speeding 

in a contruction (sic) zone and Speed exceeding maximum, were dismissed.  I 
performed community service and paid a fine for those infractions. 
Additionally, I did seek counseling for stress management at the - - - - - - -   Center 
in Ft .  Myers, FL. 

Issue 3:  I was never afforded an Article 15 or lesser punishment for this 

infraction.  My service during the time I was permitted to serve was above 
reproach. 

ATCH 
1. DD Form 214. 
2. Judgement and Sentence. 
3. Enlisted Performance Report. 
4. Letter of Reprimand, 14 Feb 97. 
5. Written Response to Administrative Discharge Action. 
6. Two Character References. 
7. Performance Feedback Worksheet. 
8. Letter from Doctor, 4 Feb 96. 
9. Letter of Appreciation. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR  FORCE 

6TH AIR REFUELING WING (AMC) 

MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA 

MEMORANDUM FOR 6 ARWICC 

FROM:  6 ARWIJA 

SUBJECT: 

B 

U.S. AIR FORCE 

17 Mar 97  B 

1 9 4 7 -  1 9 9 7  

1.  STATEMENT OF LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:  I have reviewed the subject 

I 

lly sufficient to support the discharge of 
a under honorable (general) characteri 

accordance with AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.52, for commission of a serious offense. 

2.  BASIS FOR DISCIIARGE:  The responden 
received written notification of the initiation of administrative discharge action ibr 

5.52 of AFI 36-3208 from his 
S CSICC, on 27 February 1997. 

The respondent, on or about 12 January 1997, committed a serious offense 
by willhlly fleeing and eluding law enforcement officers through Levy and 
Marion Counties, Flonda, during a high speed p u r s d   During the pursuit, 
the respondent operated his vehicle in a reckless manner at speeds in 
excess of 100 miles per hour and endangered the lives and safety of other 
motorists by nearly colliding with a semi-trailer, passing vehicles in a no 
passing zone, running several vehicles off the roadway, and dangerously 
weaving in and out of lanes of traffic. 

The respondent was taken into custody by local law enforcement and received a Letter 
of ReprimandAJnfavorable Information File Action, dated 13 February  1997 from his 
commander for the above offense. 

Paragraph 5.52 of AFI 36-3208 subjects airmen to discharge for "misconduct based on 
the commission of a serious offense."  A serious offense is defined as one for which a 
punitive discharge would be authorized under the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM). 
The respondent's  misconduct on 12 January 1997 constituted fleeing and eluding law 
enforcement and reckless operation of a motor vehicle.  Article 1 1 1 of the Uniform Code 
of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes reckless operation of a vehicle an offense punishable 
by a bad conduct discharge and confinement for up to 6 months.  Because a punitive 
discharge is authorized for the offense of reckless driving under the UCMJ, the 
respondent's  misconduct in the present case constitutes a serious offense for purposes of 
discharge action under paragraph 5.52 of AFI 36-3208. 

AMC - GLOBAL REACH FOR AMERICA 

The preprocessing rehabilitative requirements of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.2.1, are not 
applicable in this case since the basis of the discharge action is commission of a serious 
offense. 

3.  SERVICE HISTORY:  The respondent enlisted on 27 August 1993 for a period of 
four years.  He arrived on station at MacDill Air Force Base on 28 June 1996. The 
respondent has one EPR with an overall performance rating of 3 located at Tab 4.  The 
highest rank held by the respondent was Senior Airman.  The respondent is entitled to 
wear the Joint Meritorious Unit Award, Humanitarian Service Medal, Air Force 
Outstanding Unit Award, National Defense Service Medal, Air Force Overseas Short 
Tour Service Ribbon, Air Force Overseas Long Tour Service Ribbon, and Air Force 
Training Ribbon. 

4.  SUMMARY: The respondent acknowledged his right 
to military legal counsel and consulted with the area defense counsel.  The respondent did 
submit a written response to the discharge package which is located at Tab 3 and furthey 
dgcussed in paragraph 6 below. 

5.  ERRORS AND IRREGULARITIES: In the discharge notification letter, served 
27 February 1997, the respondent was notified that his service could be characterized as 
either honorable or general as a result of the pending discharge action.  However, in the 
respondent's written acknowledgment to the notification letter, signed the same date, the 
respondent did not expressly acknowledge that he could receive a general characterization 
of service.  The respondent only acknowledged, in writing, that he could receive an 
honorable characterization of service from the discharge action.  Although the respondent 
was given legally sufficient notice of the least favorable type of service characterization 
he could receive in the notification letter, his written acknowledgment did not reflect this 
fact.  In an abundance of caution, an addendum to the respondent's original 
acknowledgment was signed by the respondent on 17 March 1997.  The addendum to the 
acknowledgment contains the respondent's express statement of understanding that he 
may receive a general characterization of service from the discharge action (located at 
Tab 2).  This remedial action was more than suficient to correct the inadvertent error in 
the respondent's written acknowledgment. The respondent was not prejudiced in any 
manner by the error.  The respondent was afforded the opportunity to thoroughly respond 
to the discharge package, consult with military counsel, and address the issue of service 
characterization in his written response. 

No other errors or irregularities in the processing of this discharge action were noted. 

6.  DISCUSSION OF CASE: In his written response to the discharge letter, the 
respondent requests to be retained in the Air Force and makes several arguments in 
support of his request for retention.  The respondent claims he was never "offered  non- 
judicial punishment" or "a trial by courts-martial" and contends the failure of his 
superiors to offer him an Article 15 or courts-martial reflects his misconduct was not 

really serious enough to warrant discharge.  However, the respondent's  argument is 
comgletely misguided.  The absence of an offer of nonjudicial punishment has absolutely 
nothing to do with the gravity of the respondent's misconduct.  Article 15 of the UCMJ, 
section 1, paragraph (f$(5),  states, in relevant part, "[n]onjudicial  punishment may not be 
imposed for an offense tried by a State ... court unless authorized by regulations of the 
Secretary concerned."  In other words, the military does not typically punish an 
individual for an offense which is prosecuted by the state or local authorities.  The 
respondent's  records reflect he h i
aztuts. Therefore, the imposition of further punitive action like an Article 15 or 
court-martial would be impermissible without the express approval of higher authorities. 
 fie respondent's  entire argument is completely irrelevant to the appropriateness of this 
discharge proceeding.  Contrary to the respondent's assertions in his written presentation, 
the letter or reprimand he received and this administrative discharge proceeding do not 
constitute any form of punishment.  These actions are purely administrative in nature. 
The administrative discharge process is a quality force tool which simply permits the Air 
Force to separate those members who demonstrate they can not or will not fulfill military 
standards i f  discipline and conduct. 

 been charged with an offense by the civilian 

- 

The respondent further alleges, in his written response, that his entire military career has 
not been properly considered in this discharge action.  The respondent also claims he has 
been the victim of some type of insidious prejudice in his unit due to his past failure to 
actively participate in squadron functions.  However, a review of the evidence contained 
in the discharge package proves these allegations to be nothing less than total absurdity. 

CC 

The respondent's entire military career, including awards, decorations, and EPR ratings, 
are accurately cited his commander's recommendation letter and this legal review. The 
lack of any previous history of misconduct and the respondent's satisfactory, but far from 
outstanding, duty performance are clearly reflected in the discharge package. 
AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.52, authorizes discharpe of an airman based upon the 
- 
commission of a single, solitary serious offense.  The instruction does not require the Air 
Force to stand idly by and afford a military member the opportunity to cumnit several 
offenses before initiatin? discharge action.  In the present case, the respondent led police 
on a high speed chase over two counties and recklessly drove at speeds of over 
100 miles per hour.  The respondent endangered the safety and welfare of law 
enforcement officers, himself, and other motorists on the highway.  The pursuit could 
have, at any time, resulted in a deadly collision.  Despite the respondent's  attempt to refer 
to his misconduct in innocuous terms such as "poor judgment"  or "mistake,"  the 
respondent's  actions on the evening of 12 January 1997 very clearly constituted a flagrant 
c&e 
enforcement and the civilian community.  The absence of any prior misconduct in the 
respondent's  military record is a fact that pales by comparison to the circumstances 
surrounding the respondent's offense.  The respondent's  accusation that this discharge 
action arose from prejudice against him due to his lack of participation in squadron 
functions defies not only every shred of evidence in this case, but also logic and common 
sense. 

which severely discredited and embarrassed the Air Force in the eyes of local law 

Finally, the respondent claims he did not recklessly operate his vehicle in violation of 
UCMJ Article 11 1 because his actions were not "willful."  According to the respondent, 
he was under mental duress and emotional stress due to personal problems at the time of 
the offense.  The respondent's allusions in his written response seem to suggest that he 
was inexplicably "hypnotized by the road" on the evening of his arrest, and was unaware 
of his surroundings during the high speed pursuit.  The evidence contained in the 
discharge package contradicts the respondent's untenable excuse for his criminal 
behavior on 12 January 1997.  The police reports reflect the respondent fled and eluded a 
number of patrol cars at dangerously high speeds.  It is highly unlikely that the 
respondent remained unaware of the entourage of patrol cars with flashing blue lights 
and shrieking sirens following closely behind his vehicle for approximately 40 minutes 
(1940 -2021 hrs) through two separate counties.  Despite his cognizance of the situation, 
the respondent willfully chose to flee his lawful pursuers.  The respondent also managed 
to maneuver his vehicle around other motorists in order to flee from police.  Contrary to 
the respondent's suggestion, his vehicle did not magically guide itself down the highway 
weaving in and out of traffic while he was in a hypnotic trance.  The respondent willfully 
controlled every turn, acceleration, and elusive movement of his vehicle on the highway. 

-  - 

- 

The respondent does not contest the facts and circumstances described in the police 
reports or provide any legal or factual defense for his grave misconduct.  Considering 
both the ~espondent's entire military record, his written response, and the circumstances 
surrounding the offense, discharge is the most appropriate action to take at this time. 

7.  CHARACTERIZATION OF SERVICE AND P&R:  Under paragraph 5.48 of 
AFI 36-3208, an airman who is discharged for commission of a serious offense may 
receive in under honorable conditions (general) characterization of service or an under 
other than honorable conditions characterization of service (UOTHC).  In rare instances, 
an airman may also receive an honorable characterization of service.  The respondent has 
requested an honorable characterization of service in his written presentation.  However, 
based upon the nature of respondent's misconduct, service history, and the provisions of 
AFI 36-3208, an under honorable conditions (general) discharge would be the most 
appropriate service characterization in this case. 

Paragraph 1.18 of AFI 36-3208 states that a general characterization of service is 
appropriate when an airman's service has been honest and faithful, but significant 
negative aspects of the airman's  conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive 
aspects of the airman's  military record.  A UOTHC is usually reserved for those cases in 
which an airman's misconduct is severe and constitutes a significant departure from Air 
Force standards of conduct.  If a UOTHC characterization is recommended, an airman is 
entitled to receive an administrative discharge board hearing. 

An airman may also receive an honorable service characterization for a discharge action 
based upon a pattern of misconduct in very rare cases.  In order for an airman to receive 
an honorable characterization of service two criteria must be satisfied pursuant to 

AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.48.4.  First, the member's service must be so outstanding and 
meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.  Secondly, the 
General Court-Martial Convening Authority (GCM), 2 1 AFICC, must approve this type 
of service characterization. 

The respondent's  offense of reckless driving was serious and punishable by up to six 
months in confinement and a bad conduct discharge under the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice.  However, the respondent's reckless driving did not actually result in serious 
bodily injury to anyone, and the respondent eventually surrendered to law enforcement 
authorities without any violence or physical resistance.  Additionally, the respondent had 
some problems of a personal nature at the time of his offense.  Although the respondent's 
personal problems did not excuse his open defiance of law enforcement authorities or his 
criminal misconduct on 12 January 1997, his mental and emotional state are factors to 
consider in determining an appropriate characterization of service.  Based upon the 
respondent's  age, military record, and the circumstances surrounding his offense, a 
UOTHC characterization would not be warranted in this case.  By the same token, the 
respondent's  military record does not contain any exceptional or meritorious service that 
would justify a special recommendation to the 2 1 AFICC for an honorable 
characterization of service in light of his serious misconduct as required by AFI 36-3208, 
paragraph 5.48.4.  Therefore, an under honorable (general) characterization of service 
would be most consistent with the provisions of paragraphs 1.18 and 5.48 of AFI 36- 
3208. 

The respondent's  command 
the respondent receive prob 
AFI 36-3208, P & R should be offered only to those airmen who have demonstrated the 
potential and desire to complete their enlistment and whose continued retention on active 
duty would be consistent with the maintenance of good order and discipline in the Air 
Force. 

has not recommended 

The respondent has failed to demonstrate the potential necessary to successfully complete 
his enlistment in accordance with chapter 7, AFI 36-3208.  The respondent's  offense 
demonstrates instability, disregard for the safety of others, and defiance of authority.  In 
his written presentation, the respondent refuses to take full responsibility for his actions 
and continues to make irrational excuses for his misconduct (e.g. hypnotic effect of the 
roadway) and blame others for the action being taken against him.  The respondent 
incredulously accuses his unit of initiating discharge because of 6is lack of participation 
in squadron functions and threatens to file a congr~ssional inquiry with a warningthat he 
will "not go quietly into that good night."  The respondent's submissions must be 
afforded due consideration.  In this case, the written submissions of the respondent 
remove any hesitation or scintilla of doubt about the propriety of this discharge action. 
The circumstances surrounding the respondent's misconduct together with his written 
response to the discharge package reflect he does not possess the maturity, stability, 
respect for authority and others, or character to remain in the United States Air Force. 

For these reasons, the respondent does not satisfy the criteria of AFI 36-3208, chapter 7, 
and is not an appropriate candidate for an offer of  P & R. 

8.  OPTIONS OF CONVENING AUTHORITY:  As the Special Court-Martial 
Convening Authority, you may act as the separation authority in this case if the 
respondent receives a general discharge.  You have the following options: 

a.  Direct the respondent be discharged for commission of a serious offense, with 
an under honorable conditions (general) discharge, with or without an offer of probation 
and rehabilitation; 

b.  Direct the discharge package be reinitiated with a recommendation the 

respondent receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge for commission of 
a serious offense, in which case the respondent would be offered the opportunity to 
present his case to an administrative discharge board: 

c.  Recommend to 21 AFICC that the respondent be discharged from the Air Force 

with an honorable discharge, with or without an offer of probation and rehabilitation; 

d.  Direct that the respondent be retained in the United States Air Force. 

9.  RECOMMENDATION:  I recommend you accept the recommendations of the 
respondent's commander and direct the respondent to be discharged from the United 
States Air Force under AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.52, for commission of a serious offense, 
with an under honorable conditions (general) service characterization, without an offer of 
P & R.  If you concur with this recommendation, the appropriate letter is attached for 
your signature. 

I concur. 

.-.- --"--,- 

. -.- 
Staff Judge Advocate 

JEPARTMENT  OF THE AIR  FORL-  F-/-  & s o 3  

6TH AIR REFUELING WING (AMC) 

MACDILL AIR  FORCE BASE, FLORIDA 

MEMORANDUM FOR AO 
FROM:  6 CSICC 

4 

SUBJECT:  Notification Memorandum 

1.  I am recommending your discharge fiom the United States Air Force for commission of a serious 
offense.  The authority for this action is AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36- 3208, paragraph 5.52.  If my 
recommendation is approved, your service will be characterized as honorable or general.  I am 
recommending that your service be characterized as under honorable conditions (general). 

2.  My reasons for this action are as follows: 

You did, in Levy and Marion Counties, on or about 12 January 1997, commit serious offenses, to wit: 
fleeing and eluding law enforcement officers during a high speed pursuit and recklessly operating a motor 
vehicle in a manner that endangered the lives and property of other motorists.  You led law enforcement 
officers on a high speed chase, driving your vehicle at rates of speed in excess of 100 miles per hour on 
public roadways with speed limits of between 35-45 miles per hour, through the city of Chiefland, the city 
of Williston, Levy County, and Marion County.  During the high speed pursuit, you jeopardized the safety 
and welfare of other motorists by running several vehicles off the road, nearly colliding with an on-coming 
semi-trailer, passing several vehicles on a hill in a no passing zone, and dangerously weaving in and out of 
traffic in a reckless manner, at excessive rates of speed, as evidenced by the attached documentation and 
video tape. 

3.  Copies of the documents to be fonvarded to the separation authority in support of this recommendation 
are attached.  The commander exercising SPCM jurisdiction or a higher authority will decide whether you 
will be discharged or retained in the Air Force.  If you are discharged, you will be ineligible for reenlistment 
in the Air Force. 

4.  You have the right to consult couns 
made an appointment for you to consul 
2-1 I-& 53 

I ~ O O  . 

- 

at 

el has been obtained to assist you.  I have 

on 
nsel at ybur own expense. 

& < p .  

5.  You have the right to submit statements in your own behalf.  Any statements you want the separation 
authority to consider must reach me by  4  MA^ 57 
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 statements in your own behalf, your failure will constitute a 
waiver of your right to do so. 

7.  You have been scheduled for a medical examination.  You must report to the 6th Medical Group 
Hospital - Physical Exams , at  /ooD  hours on  -7 m ~ j 7  . 

AMC -- GLOBAL REACH FOR AMERICA 

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 Orderly Room. 

9.  Execute the attached acknowledgment and return it to me immediately. 

Attachments: 
I.  Respondent's Acknowledgment 
2.  Security Police Incident Report, DD Form  1569, dtd 12 Jan 97 (3ppg) 
3.  Chiefland Police Department Offense Report, dtd 12 Jan 97 (3ppg) 
4.  Florida Uniform Traffic Citation, dtd  12 Jan 97 (lpg) 
5.  Sworn Complaint for Eighth Judicial Circuit by Levy County Sheriffs Department, dtd 12 Jan 97 

(2ppg) 

6.  Levy County Arrest Warrant, dtd 13 Jan 97 (3ppg) 
7.  City of Williston Police Department Incident Report, dtd 12 Jan 97 (2ppg) 
8.  Sworn Complaint for Eighth Judicial Circuit by Williston Police Department, dtd 12 Jan 97 (lpg) 
9.  Marion County Sheriffs Department OffenseIIncident Report, dtd 12 Jan 97 (4ppg) 
10.  Marion County Sheriffs Department Arrest Affidavit, dtd 12 Jan 97. (2ppg) 
11.  LOR,dtd  13 Feb97(lpg) 
12.  UIF Action, dtd 13 Feb 97 (lpg) 
13.  Response to LOR, dtd  13 Feb 97 (4ppg) 
14. Duty Status Changes, AF Form 2098, dtd  16 Jan 97 (2pg) 
15.  Video Taped Portion of High Speed Pursuit on 12 Jan 97 by Levy County Sheriffs Department