, AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSN/SSAN
comars | ww AB (ARRAN
TYPE
X PERSONAL APPEARANCE , RECORD REVIEW
COUNSEL NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
YES NO
x
: VOTE OF THE BOARD ~ 4
MEMBERS SITTING HON“) “GEN voTie omer DENY
i tété‘(t*# x
eed x
(eee x
ee x
x
ISSUES INDEX NUMBER . EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD __]
A94.06, A93.02,A92.22 A67.90 1 | ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2 | APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
a
3 | LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
HEARING DATE CASE NUMBER 4 | BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
5 FEB 03 FD2002-0092 COUNSEL’S REILEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING
[ (APPLICANT © SoU AND.THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE,
REMARKS ‘i ss ish i Eee a See a 5 SE alle

Case heard at Travis AFB, California.
Advise applicant of the decision of the Board.
* Change the Reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority.

+ Change the RE Code to 3K.

 

SIGNATURE OF RECOR SIGNATURE OF BOAR

  
  

   

     

INDORSEMENT

 

DATE: 5 FEB.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 AFR, 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 FD2002-0092

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

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, at Travis
AFB, CA on February 5, 2003. The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing:

Exhibit 5: Applicant’s contentions.
Exhibit 6: Character letter .@gygieaeae pe, LAAFB DoD Police Force, undated

Exhibit 7; DoD Police, LAAFB A Appraisal, Jan- -May 2002

Exhibit 8: LAPD Diploma, LAPD Police’ Academy Training, Basic Police Science, 15 Nov 02
Exhibit 9: DoD Police certificate of training, 4 Apr 2002

Exhibit 10: Letter of appreciation for good deed, LA DoD Police, undated

Exhibit 11: Letter dated 1 Nov 93, request for permissive TDY for training

Exhibit 12: Letter dated 27 Feb 93, recommendation for permissive TDY

Exhibit 13: Fact sheet, relocation of Kadena consolidated command post
Exhibit 14: Character letters (2), fronwidibiedan, 2c deena
Exhibit 15: Quality Control Records, (2)

Exhibit 16: Letters of appreciation, (11)

Exhibit 17: Certificates of achievement, recognition, appreciation, (12)
Exhibit 18: 374 SPTG/CC Unit Safety Qualification letter

Exhibit 19: Certificates of training, (8)

Exhibit 20: Letters of appreciation, character (2)

Exhibit 21: LAPD Police Officer Academy certificate

Exhibit 22: AF Form 910, 12May92-11Jan94 w/ atch

Exhibit 23: lONov94 Subsistence in kind (SIK) validation letter
Exhibit 24: Hand drawn map of security area of responsibility

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

FINDINGS: The Board grants the requested relief.

The Board finds that the neither the evidence of record and nor that provided by the applicant substantiates
an impropriety that would justify upgrade of the discharge. However, after a thorough review of the record,
the Board finds that the applicant’s character of discharge and reason for discharge are inequitable.

ISSUES: The applicant was discharged with a General Discharge for Misconduct — Conduct Prejudicial to
Good Order and Discipline. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 for attempting to
steal an In-Flight Kitchen box lunch meal of a value of about $2.60. He also received 3 Letters of
Reprimand and 2 Letters of Counseling for inattention on post, failure to follow standard procedures, failure
to attend chemical warfare training, and failure to repair a hole in his boots. Evidence of testimony and the
records regarding the actual nature and circumstances of the incidents lead the board to conclude that the
applicant’s discharge and characterization were too harsh. The Board does not condone the serious
incidents of inattention while on post, but noted that no further incidents of inattention on post had occurred
in the year prior to his discharge. The applicant provided evidence regarding the circumstances surrounding
his Article 15 that lead the Board to conclude that discharge was harsh. The Board opined based on the
positive aspects of the applicant’s duty and post scrvice accomplishments reflecting positively on his
character, that he may have been retained for an opportunity for rehabilitation. While the Board did not
condone the applicant’s incidents of willful misconduct, they did feel it more equitable to characterize his
service as honorable. The DRB also opined that the reason for discharge should be changed to Secretarial
Authority and to change his RE Code.

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, in view of the foregoing findings, the Board also concludes that the overall quality of applicant’s
service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge. The applicant’s characterization for
discharge should be changed to Honorable, Secretarial Authority, and the RE Code changed to 3K. under the
provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment:
Examiner's Brief
FD2002-0092
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
ANDREWS AFB, MD

oon (Former AB) (HGH A1C)
eee

1. MATTER UNDER REVIEW: Appl rec’d a GEN Disch fr USAF 94/12/21 UP AFI 36-3208,
para 5.50.2 (Misconduct - Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline).
Appeals for Honorable Discharge and to Change the Reason and Authority for Disch.

2. BACKGROUND:

a. DOB: 72/08/05. Enlmt Age: 19 3/12. Disch Age: 22 4/12. Educ:HS DIPL.
AFQT: N/A. A-72, E-69, G-46, M-80. PAFSC: 3P031 - Security Apprentice.
DAS: 92/10/14.

b. Prior Sv: (1) AFRes 91/11/13 - 92/05/11 (5 months 29 days) (Inactive).
3. SERVICE UNDER REVIEW:
a. Enlisted as AB 92/05/12 for 4 yrs. Svd: 02 Yrs 07 Mo 10 Das, all AMS.

b. Grade Status: AB - 94/11/21 (Article 15, 94/11/21)
Alc - 93/09/12
AMN - 92/11/12

c. Time Lost: none.

d. Art 15’s: (1) 94/11/21, Kadena AFB, Japan - Article 80. You, did, on
or about 05 Nov 94, attempt to steal an In-Flight
Kitchen box lunch meal, of a value of about $2.60, the
property of the In-Flight Kitchen. Reduction to AB,
and a reprimand. (Appeal/Denied) (No mitigation)

e. Additional: LOC, 93/11/15 - Failure to go.
Loc, 93/11/15 - Dereliction of duty.
LOR, 16 NOV 93 - Violation of AFR 35-10
LOR, 02 DEC 93 —- Dereliction of duty.
LOR, 22 APR 94 - Dereliction of duty.
f, CM: none.
g. Record of SV: 92/05/12 - 94/01/11 Kadena AB 4 (Initial)
(Discharged from Kadena AB)
h., Awards & Decs: AFTR, NDSM, AFOUA W/2 OLCS, SAEMR.

i. Stmt of Sv: TMS: (03) Yrs (01) Mos (09) Das
TAMS: (02) Yrs (07) Mos (10) Das
FD2002-0092

4. BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW: Appln (DD Fm 293) dtd 02/02/26.

(Change Discharge to Honorable and Change the Reason and Authority for
Discharge)

ISSUES ATTACHED TO BRIEF.

ATCH

Reference Scale of Government Evidence.
MFR, SIK Validation.

Certificate of Recognition.
Certificate of Training.
Certificate of Achievement.
Certificate of Appreciation.
Three Letters of Appreciation.
Certificate of Appreciation.

Two Letters of Appreciation.

10. Character Reference.

11. Four Letters of Appreciation.
12. Two Q.C. Reports.

13. Enlisted Performance Report.

14. Civilian Performance Evaluation.

way nw Whe

02/06/12/ia
FR2002-22 92

Dear DRB: a

The following issues are the reasons I believe my discharge should be upgraded to
Honorable. If the DRB disagrees, please explain in detail why the board disagrees, The
presumption of regularity that might normally permit the DRB to assume that the service
acted correctly in the characterization my service as less than honorable does not apply to
my case because of the evidence I am submitting in the following:

1. Clemency is warranted because it is an injustice for me to continue to suffer the
adverse consequences of other than “Honorable” characterization. Recently, J
have qualified for several civilian Police Officer jobs only to be turned away
because of my negative discharge rating. [ have been working for the US Air
Force since 15 Dec 97 years as a civilian employee honorably. Ironically, I

currently work i ce maT erTeTe I tee RTT rd
08. Since May 01, I have been working side by side with active duty personnel

excelling in the same job I was discharged from.

2. Under current Security Forces (SF) standards, I would not receive the type of
discharge I did. SF Airmen of today are considered valuable/critical assets to the
USAF. Changes in the Quality Air Force (QAF) program implements more strict
guidelines for supervisors to assist/help young Airman in trouble. Since 1994, SF
has driven to a more professional force. More patience, guidance and education is
the key today for a more professional force verses several years ago. —

3. My last Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rates my performance/conduct as
very, good and ready for promotion. I was rated.a 4 out of 5 scale with
excellent/positive comments from Supervisor, Superintendent and a concur from
the Commander. (see supporting documents)

4. I was never just a Security Policeman. I played on the squadron softball team.
Participated in fund raising activities. I was a certified/active member of the base
Emergency Services Team (EST). Served as Combat Readiness Evaluator for
deployable base units, etc. (see supporting documents)

5. The record of disciplinary actions against me show a suspicious trend. In 14 duty
days I received two Letters Of Counseling (LOC), two Letters Of Reprimand, a
Unfavorable Information file (UIF) established and was put on a control roster.
Three months later I was given a good performance rating. The events that led to
my involuntary discharge do not appear credible.(see attached Reference Scale
and letter from Kadena Flight Kitchen.)

6. I must admit that the disciplinary action that was forced on me was the result of
my immaturity to deal with certain situations.

7. In today’s Air Force, my situation would not exist. There are mariy programs and
policies dealing with young Airman with troubles. I had no real discipline
problem, It was called immaturity. I feel that I was targeted purposely by a select
FP 2002-2092

few that just did not want me in the Air Force for one reason or another. I can
still remember my Supervisor telling me “Don’t worry about a rebuttal for the
LOR’s. Just sign and press on. It would only make thing worse for me.”

8; I feel my discharge was unfairly justified. The history/facts that led up to my
discharge was not researched/investigated carefully. My last performance
evaluation in my official records raises questions of the validity of my discharge.
My record states I was offered rehabilitation. I do not recall ever being offered.
(see supporting documents)

In closing, I would like to have the opportunity to go before the DRB and present my
case in more detail. I feel it is time to fight for what I believe in. I have been overseas
for the past 9 years up until last May. I have been waiting for this opportunity for 7 years
This issue is very important to my career and I. Thank you for your consideration.
“Fe ZOOZ- OOP Z

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
PACIFIC AIR FORCES

 

2 December 1094

MEMORANDUM FOR 18 WG/CC

FROM: 18 WG/JA
Unit 5141, Box 40

APO AP 96368-5141

      

 
 
  

   

 

   

SUBJECT: Legal Review - Adminietrative Diachar¢ annemenaseenalipaati:
i. BASIS: - ia initiated this administrative
discharge action against _ for a Pattern af

Miaconduct-Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Diagipline. The authority
for this action is AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3108, paragraph 5.50.2. The

initiating commander hag recommended a general digcharge without probation and
rehabilitation.

2. GQVERNMENT’S EVIDENCE:

a. On or about 3 Nov 93, Qi vailed to go at the time pregcribed to

Chemical Warfare Defenge Training. Ags a reault, he received a Letter of
Counseling on 18 Nov 93 (Tab 1-1).

b. On opr about 6 Nov 93, he was derelict in the performance of his
duties in that he was inattentive during poat inapection. Ag a reault, he
received a Letter of Coungeling aon 16 Nov 93 (Tab 1-2).

ec. On opr about 6 Nov 83, he wag in violation of AFR 35-10 by wearing
boots with a hole in them; he wag instructed to buy another pair of boots. On
op about 10 Nov 93, he waa again in violation of AFR 35-10 in that he failed
to replace hig boots. On or about 15 Nov 93, he failed to replace hie boots

ag directed and he falled to go at the time prescribed to hia appointed place
of duty. As a result, he received a Letter of Reprimand on 16 Nov 93 (Tab
1-3).

. d. On opr about 16 Nov 93, he was derelict in the performance of his
duties in that he failed to properly zecure the area he wag ageigned to. Ag a

reault, he received a Letter of Reprimand on 2 Dec 93, an Unfavorable
Information File was established and he wag placed on the Control Roster (Tab
1-4).

e. Qn or about 13 Apr 94, he was derelict in the performance of hia
duties in that he failed to report to his supervisor an incident that was not
covered in the Security Police General Orders manual. As a reault, he
received a Letter of Reprimand on 22 Apr 94 (Tab 1-5).
PPD 200 2- 20 72—

f. On or about § Nov 94, he attempted to steal an in-flight box lunch
meal. As a result, he received an Article 15 on 16 Nov 94. Punishment

congiated of reduction to the grade of AB and a reprimand (Tab 1-6).

3. RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE:

4. The peapondent, a 22-year old alpman, originally enligted 12 May 92.
Hia AQE scorea are A-72, E-69, G-46, and M-80. This airman hae received one
evaluation peport which closed out on 11 Jan 94 and rated him an overall 4,
The airman ia entitled to wear the medal#e, awards and ribbona outlined in the
commander’s recommendation.

b. The respondent was given the opportunity to congult with military
defense coungel and haa submitted a atatement in response to thia digcharge

action. gees 2 cus 2es the ineidents that led to thiga diecharge action.
He believes that these incidencea were either misunderstandings or minor
errors on hia part. He estatea that he has learned from thege mistakes and
that aince hia last Letter of Reprimand in April 1094 he has done a good job.

wguebiem states that he just got married and wag not aware of all the
paperwork necessary to change hia marital status. He states that he did not

intentionally try to gteal the box lunch. He states that he is very
embarragged about the incident and that he ig not a thief, he merely made a

mistake. He believes that he ig an agget to the Air Force and haa done a good
job. He requests that he be retained in the Air Force.

4, ERRORS OR IRREGULARITIES: None noted.
5. DISCUSSION:

a. AFT 38-3208, paragraph 5.50.2, authorizea the involuntary separation
of airmen who engage in a pattern of misconduct. @gew@apactiona have

resulted in one Article 15, three Lettera of Reprimand, two Lettere of
Counseling, establishment of an Unfavorable Information File and placement on

the Control Roster. These documented ingtancee af migconduct satisfy the
requirements of the regulation and justify discharge.

b. Characterization of service ag general is appropriate when algnificant
negative aspects of an airman’s conduct outweigh positive aspects of hig or
her military record. Based on the continual nature of hig migconduct,
characterization ot sigan service ag general ia appropriate.

e. I concur with 18 SPS/CC that probation and rehabilitation is not
appropriate for this airman. “QM was given numerous opportunities to
rehabilitate himaelf. He did not take advantage of thoge opportunities and
continued hig misconduct. There ig no reagon to believe that further
rehabilitative afforta would be effective.

6. OPTIONS: Ags special court-martial convening authority, you may:
a. Retain aa. if you conaider discharge unwarranted;

b. Direct a  feneral diagcharge with or without probation and
rehabilitation; op

c, Recommend that § AF/CC direct an honorable diacharge with or without
prabation and rehabilitation.
Pp 2002-0892.

4%. RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend you direct a feneral discharge without probation and
rehabilitation by signing the attached letter.

 
     

“ — W Colonel, USAF
Statf Judge Advocate, 18th Wing
_ — Pp 20oZ-22 Va

MEMORANDUM FO igitineiliiilliernnagisiilliieastetsesiiiienmintin, Nov 21 1992

FROM: 18 SPS/CC
Unit 8212
APO AP 96368-5212

SUBJECT: Notifieation Letter

1. TI am recommending your discharge from the United Statea Air Force for
a Pattern of Miseonduct-Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline.
The authority for this action ia AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, paragraph
5.50.2. If my recommendation ig approved, your service will be characterized

aa honorable or general. I am recommending that your geryice be
characterized aa general.

2. My reasons for thig action are, specifically:

A On or about 3 Nov 93, you failed to go at the time prescribed to

Chemical Warfare befenge Training. As a réeult, you received a Letter of
Counseling on 15 Nov 93 (Tab 1-1).

b On or about 6 Nov 93, you were derelict in the performance of your

duties in that you were inattentive during post ingpection. Az a result, you
received a Letter of Counseling on 15 Nov 93 (Tab 1-2).

ce. On or about 6 Nov 93, you were in violation of AFR 35-10 by wearing
boote with a hole in them for which you wee ingtructed to buy another pair of
boote. On or about 10 Nov 93, you were in violation of AFR 35-10 in that you
failed to replace your boota. On or about 15 Nov 93, you failed to replace
your boots and you failed to go at the time prescribed to your appointed place
of duty. As a result, you received a Letter of Reprimand on 16 WNov 93
(Tab 1-3).

d. On or about 16 Nov 93, you were derelict in the performance of your
duties in that you failed to properly gecure the area you were ageigned to.
As a result, you received a Letter of Reprimand on 2 Dec 93, an Unfavorable

Information File was eatabliahed and you were placed on the Control Roaster
(Tab 1-4).

e. On or about 13° Apr 94, you were derelict in the performance of

~ your duties in that you failed to report an incident that waz not covered in

the Security Police General Ordera manual. As a result, you received a
Letter of Reprimand on 22 Apr 94 (Tab 1-5).

f. On or ahout § Nov 94, you attempted to steal an In-Flight box lunch
meal. Ag a result, you received an Article 15 on 16 Nov 04. Punishment
conalated of reduction to the grade of AB and a reprimand (Tab 1-6).

Copies of the documenta to be forwarded to the separation authority in support
of this recommendation are attached. The commander exercising SPCM

juriadietion or a higher authority will decide whether you will be diacharged
or petained in the Air Force and, if you are discharged, how your service will

be characterized. If you are diacharged, you will be ineligible for
reenlistment in the Air Force.
FDPOO2LZ-~ COT 2,

3. You have the right to consult counsel. Military iegal counsel has been
ob d to, agsiat you. I have made an appointment for you to consult
tiie at the Area Defense Coungel at SBuilding 1460 on
2 Ov at OR 3D hours. You may consult civilian coungel at. your own
expense.

4. You have the right to submit atatementa in your own behalf. Any atatemente
you want the gaparation authority to conelder must reach me by [YOO 39 hoy ai
unless you request and receive an extension for good cause shown. Iwill send

them to the geparation authority.

8. If you fail to consult coungel or to submit atatementa in your own behalf,
your failure will conatitute a waiver of your right to do go.

6 You have been echeduled for a medical examination on /b NPV 1 at

DYS- at the Physical Exame Section, 18th Medical Group, Kadena AB, Japan.

7. Any pergonal information you furnigh in rebuttal ig covered by the Privacy
Act of 1974. A copy of AFI 36-3208, if available for your use at the Area

Defenge Counsel office.

8. Execute the attached acknowledgment and peturn it to me immediately.

    

; 7 7 ti Cs : " i ’ e USAF
Commander, 18th Security Police Squadron