jt
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

PERSONAL APPEARANCE

a NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

  
 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

   

GRADE AFSN/SSAN

a

X RECORD REVIEW

——
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

 

MEMBER SITTING

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
  
  
 

INDEX NUMBER A67,50

 
 
        

 

1 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2 | APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 | LETTER OF NOTIFICATION

4 | BRIEF OF PERSONNE], FILE

COUNSEL’S RELEASE TO THE BOARD

 

 

 

 

    
  

HEARING DATE

04 Nov 2003

CASE NUMBER

FD-2001-0539

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

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

 

T ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

 

 
   

~

 

 

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD

1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD 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 FD-2001-0539

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 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 the applicant substantiates an
inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE: Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. Applicant also states that
he has conducted himself in a respectable manner since discharge. The records indicated the applicant
received two Article 15s, both for assault. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the
applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. The Board concluded the misconduct
was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members. The characterization of the
discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate. Applicant states that his discharge did not
take into account the good things he did while in the service. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty
performance as documented by his performance reports, letters of recommendation and other
accomplishments. They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the
applicant's duty performance. The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons that were
the basis for this case. Finally, the applicant makes mention to his 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. The Board concluded 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 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
FD2001-0539
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
ANDREWS AFB, MD

quaagnacm (Former AMN) (HGH A1C)
engine.

1. MATTER UNDER REVIEW: Appl rec’d a GEN Disch fr USAF 93/05/27 UP AFR 39-10,
para 5-47a (Misconduct - Digcreditable Involvement with Military or Civil
Authorities). Appeals for Honorable Disch.

2. BACKGROUND:

a. DOB: 70/05/09. Enlmt Age: 19 4/12. Disch Age: 23 0/12. Educ:HS DIPL.
AFOT: N/A. A-56, #-45, G-39, M-74. PAFSC: 452548 — Tactical Aircraft
Maintenance Specialist. DAS: 92/05/19.

b. Prior Sv: (1) AFRes 89/10/02 - 90/01/15 (3 moriths 14 days) (Inactive) .
3. SERVICE UNDER REVIEW:
a. Enlisted as AB 90/01/06 for 4 yrs. Svd: 03 Yrs 04 Mo 12 Das, all AMS.

b. Grade Status: AMN - 93/04/23 (Article 15, 93/04/23)
Alc - 91/05/16
AMN ~ 90/07/16

c. Time Lost: none.

d. Art 15’s: (1) 93/04/23, Hill AFB, UT - Article 128. You did, on or
about 3 Apr 93, unlawfully strike Amn ------- in the
face with your hand. Article 134. You were, on or
about 3 Apr 93, drunk and disorderly. Reduction to
Amn, (No appeal) (No mitigation)

(2) 92/01/08, Hill AFB, UT - Article 128. You, did, on or
about 27 Dec 91, unlawfully strike A1C ----- , on the
head with your fist. Reduction to the grade of Airman,
forfeiture of $250.00 pay per month for two months, and
15 days extra duty. Reduction to the grade of Airman

is mitigated to forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for
one month. (No appeal)
e, Additional: none.

£. CM: none.

g. Record of SV: 90/01/16 - 91/09/15 Torrejon AB 4 (Initial)
91/09/16 - 92/01/19 Torrejon AB 2 (CRO) REF
92/01/20 - 93/01/19 Hill AFB 3 (Annual )
93/01/20 - 93/05/10 Hill AFB 2 (HAF Dir) REF
FD2001-0539
(Discharged from Hill AFB)

h. Awards & Decs: AFOUA, AFGCM, NDSM, SWASM W/1 BSS, AFOSSTR, SAEMR,
AFTR, KLM, AFOSLTR.

i. Stmt of Sv: TMS: (03) Yrs (07) Mos (26) Das
TAMS: (03) Yrs (04) Mos (12) Das

4, BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW: Appln (DD Fm 293) dtd 01/11/30.
(Change Discharge to Honorable)

Issue 1: Please accept the enclosed DD293 for upgrade of discharge.
Attached are numerous letters of appreciation from active duty pilots of the
Unted States Air Force. Also, are letters of support from past employers
verifying my conduct since the Air Force.

While serving in the United States Air Force I managed to put myself in a bad
position by associating with the wrong crowd of people. Near my last year of
service there was a barracks party, which I happened to be drinking. A fight
broke out and I stepped in to help dissolve the issue, instead I ended up in the
fight. Prior to that fighting incident, I had made a few bad financial
decisions which, I had bounced a few checks, as the result of that, I couldn't
pay a couple of my bills, which the creditors phoned my commanding officer.
Therefore, I didn't have the approval of my off duty conduct from my commander
during that time. Combine that with the fighting and drinking it did not
represent my true demeanor of how I felt about the United States Air Force, and
what it represents.

I truly understand that my conduct did not represent the highest levels of what
the United States Air Force stands for. I made a choice of accepting the
General Under Honorable discharge, instead of taking it to trail(sic). I
strongly feel that I had a fair chance of winning had it gone to trail (sic),
however, I didn't want to chance getting a Dishonorable Discharge.

Although I may have made some poor choices, they never ever interfered with my
on duty performance as the attached documentation will attest.

Since I left the Air Force I have conducted myself in a respectable manner.

I truly understand that I may not be granted a "Honorable" discharge, but I
would ask the board to consider changing my re-entry code so that I may re-enter
the United States Air Force. My ultimate goal is to re-enter the United States
Air Force and serve my country honorably. I feel I have a lot to offer the Air
Force and want to prove myself to the Air Force.

Finally, should I be granted a hearing, I wish to bring a friend for support.

Thank you for your time regarding this manner.
FD2001-0539

ATCH

Congressional Correspondenct, 04 Dec 01.
Letter to the Discharge Review Board., 30 Nov 01.
DD Form 214.

Certificate of Recongnition, 04 Apr 90.
Letter of Appreciation, 30 Nov 01.
Maintenance Quality Assurance Evaluation.
Five Flightline Maintenance Critique Sheets.
Maintenance Quality Assurance Evaluation.
Page two of Enlisted Performance Report.

10. Two Flightline Maintenance Critique Sheets.
11. Maintenance Quality Assurance Evaluation.
12. Airman Performance Feedback Worksheet.

13. Letter of Appreciation.

14, Character Reference.

15. Employee Performance Evaluation.

16. Character Reference.

wena mH Oo fw te

02/04/05/ia
Pp 207 - OS37

!

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS OGDEN AIR LOGISTICS CENTER (AFMC)
HILL AIR FORCE BASE

Reply to

Attn Of: JAM-CL (Captain Maa 18 May 1993

Subject: Legal Review -- Administrative Discharge under AFR 39-10, paragraph

5-47a, Airman Qe, 34 Fs (ACC)

To: 649 SPTG/CC

1. Bagig for Action. On 11 May 1993, the Commander, 34 FS, notified the
respondent that he was recommending his discharge from the service for a
pattern of misconduct consisting of discreditable involvement with military
or civil authorities under AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-47a. The. Commander
recommended a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation (P & R).
This case ig being processed by the notification procedure, and the worst
characterization authorized is a general discharge.

2. Evidence for the Commander. The evidence supporting the Commander’s
recommendation consists of the following:

a. On or about 3 April 1993, the respondent unlawfully struck another
airman in the face with his hand. Additionally, on 3 April 1993, the
respondent wag drunk and disorderly. As a result, the respondent received

nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 consisting of a reduction in grade to
Airman, with a new date of rank of 23 April 1993.

b. On or about 27 December 1991, at or near Torrejon de Ardoz, Spain,
the reapondent unlawfully atruck another airman in the head with hia fiat. As
aA reault, he received nonjudicial punighment under Article 15 consisting of a
reduction in grade to Airman, with a new date of rank of 8 January 1992,
forfeiture of #28.00 per month for two monthe, and 15 daya extra duty. The
reduction to the grade of Airman was mitigated on 31 March 1992 toa
forfeiture of #100.00 per month for one month.

3. Evidence for the Respondent. On 11 May 1993, the Commander informed the
regpondent of hia right to submit a gtatement in his own behalf, and consult
legal counsel. The respondent did not submit a statement for your
consideration

4. Errors oor Irregularities. The respondent’s discharge package is missing
his medical evaluation and copies of all of hig EPRs. The letter requesting

that a temporary ID card be igsued under attachment two is not necessary. I
noted no other errors or administrative irregularities of legal significance.

5. Discussion. An airman may be administratively discharged for a pattern of
misconduct in the current enlistment consisting of discreditable involvement
with military or civil authorities. Based upon his conduct, we conclude that
a general digcharge is appropriate, and P & R would serve no useful purpose.

In this cage, the respondent actions demonstrate an inability to adapt his
off-duty behavior to military standards. In the most recent incident, the
respondent struck another airman in the face with his hand. An investigation
of the incident also indicated that the respondent was drunk and disorderly.
PD220[- IS 37

f ‘

As a result, he received Article 15. In a separate incident, the respondent
struck another airman in the head with hig fist. As a result of this conduct,
he also received an Article 15. In addition to these off-duty incidents, the
Commander also received a letter from SQQRRMMBank in December 1992
informing him that the respondent was behind #789.62 on his car payments and
they had no proof of ingurance coverage. The contract required the respondent
to make timely payments and keep his car insured; therefore, the bank
purchased ingurance in the amount of #410.69. This type of conduct shows a
total disregard for Air Force policies and standards on how airman should
behave while off-duty. As can be seen, the Commander’s rehabilitative efforts
met with negative resulta. Therefore, due to the seriougnega of the conduct
and the reapondent’a failure to modify his behavior, we believe that a general
diacharge is appropriate and P & R would gerve no ugeful purpoge.

6. Options. Aa SPCM authority, you have the following options:
a. Order the action terminated;

b. Return the action to the squadron, and order the action be initiated
under a more appropriate discharge provision;

c. Recommend to the GCM authority that he characterize the respondent's
discharge as honorable with or without P & R; or

d. Order the respondent discharged with a general discharge
characterization with or without P & R.

7. Recommendation. We recommend you order the respondent's separation from
the Air Force with a general digcharge without P & R under AFR 39-10,
paragraph 5-47a for discreditable involvement with military or civil
authorities. We recommend debarment.

    

Col , USAF 1 Atch

Staff Judge Advocate Case File
PO2601 ~ 0537

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS 388TH FIGHTER WING (ACC)
HILL AIR FORCE BASE, UTAH

 

FROM: 34 FS/CC 11 MAY 4093

SUBJ: Letter of Notification

TO: Arn SRAngAReRRMUNLINs 34. FS

1. Iam recommending your discharge from the United States Air Force for a pattern of misconduct
involving discreditable involvement with military or civil authorities. The authority for this action is
AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-47a. If my recommendation is approved, this action could result in your
separation with a general or honorable discharge. I am recommending that your service by characterized
as general.

2. My reasons for this action are:

a. On or about 3 April 1993, at Hill AFB, Utah, you did unlawfully strike Airman @ggg™*
win the face with your hand. Additionally, on 3 April 1993, you were drunk and disorderly. As
a result, you received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 consisting of a reduction in grade to the
rank of Airman, with a new date of rank of 23 April 1993 (Atch 1a).

b. On or about 27 December 1991, at or near Torrejon de Ardoz, Spain, you did unlawfully strike
AlLCCRRRRRIMMA, on the head with your fist, As a result, you received nonjudicial punishment under
Article 15 consisting of a reduction in grade to Airman, with a new date of rank of 8 January 1992, and
forfeiture of $25.00 per month for two months (Atch 1b). The reduction to the grade of Airman was
mitigated on 31 March 1992 to a forfeiture of $100.00 per month for one month (Atch 1c),

Copies of the documents to be forwarded to the separation authority in support of this recommendation
are attached. The commander exercising special court martial jurisdiction or higher authority will
decide whether you will be discharged or retained in the Air Force and if you are discharged, how your
service will be characterized. If you are discharged, you will be ineligible for reenlistment in the Air
Force.

3. You have the right to counsel. Military legal counsel has been obtained to assist you. I have made

an appointment for you to consult with Capt @gmm&in Bldg tag on_12 f°! at
INBSoO hours. You may consult civilian counsel at your own expense.

4. You have the right to submit statements in your own behalf. Any statements you want the separation
authority to consider must reach me by J 4 MAY _, unless you submit and receive an extension for
good cause shown. I will send them to the separation authority.

5. 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.

6. You have been scheduled for a medical examination. You must report to the Physical Exam Section,
USAF Hospital Hill at 9709 hours on _] 9 way 1993

Hobal Pourer for Amenriaa
fp 20/-O5 37

7. Any personal information you furnish in rebuttal is covered by the Privacy Act Statement as
explained in AFR 39-10, attachment 1. A copy of AFR 39-10 is available for use in the 34 FS Orderly
Room.

8. Execute the attached acknowledgment and return to me immediately.

 
 

Lt Col, USAF 2 Atch

Commander 1. Supporting Documents for the Reason for
Discharge
a. AF Form 3070, 23 Apr 93 w/atch
b. AF Form 3212, 31 Mar 92 w/atch
c. AF Form 3070, 8 Jan 92 w/atch
d. Other Pertinent Data
2. Airman's Receipt of Notification Letter