.' 
7 
t. 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD 

NAME OF SERVICE MEMRER (LAST, FIRST MIDDIX INITIAL) 

GRADE 

AFSNISSAN 

-i 

X  PERSONAL APPEARANCE 
NAME OW  COIJNSELAND OR ORCANUATION 

RECORD REVIEW 

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION O F  

- 
MEMBERS SITTING 

?. 

VOTE OF TIlE ROARn 

HON 

CEN 

UOTHC 

OTHER 

DENY 

X +* 

ISSUES 
A01.14,28.00,93.02,93.22, 

1  93.34,94.02,94.06,94.12 

IlEARlNG DATE 
6 MAR 03 

INDEX NUMBER 
A67.90 

I 

CASE NUMBER 
FD2002-02228 

I 

1 
2 

4 

I 

I 

I 
EXHIBITS SUBMITT'ED TO TRE BOARD 

I 

I  ORDER MPOIN'TMG  THE BOARD 
I 
MPLICA 1 ION  FOR REVIEW OF  DISCHARCJE 

BRIEF O r  PERSONNEL FILE 
('OLrNSF1,'S  RELEASt  I 0  I  HI: BOARD 

PERSONAL APPEARANCE 

I 

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE ILEARING 

APPLICANT'S ISSIJE AND TI-TP, BOARD'S  DECISIONAI,  RATIONAI.  ARE DISCUSSED  ON 'THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW B O A F  DECISIONAL. RATIONALE. 

KEMAKKS 

Case heard at Washington, DC. 

+  Change RE Code 
*  Change Reason and Authroity for discharge 

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board. 

I 

TO. 

SAFMIBR 
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 4 0  
KANDOLPI 1 AFB, TX 781 50-4742 

INDORSEMENT 

I  FROM: 

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 

(EF-\ 

2 )  

I 

I 

D.4'I.E:  7 MAR 03 

1 

SECRETARY OF THE AIK 1:OKCE  PERSONNEL COUNCII, 
AIR FORCE  DISCHARGE KEVlE W BOARD 
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR 
ANDREWS AFR, MD 20762-7002 

Previous edition will be used. 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE 

CASE NUMBER 

FD2002-0228 

GENERAL:  The applicant appcals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and for a change in the RE Code 
and the Reason and Authority for discharge. 

The  applicant's  case was considered by  the  Discharge  Review  Board  (DRR), at 
March 6, 2003.  The applicant appeared before the DKB but did not have counsel 
fdther, also appeared and testified on behalf of the applicant. 

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

FINDINGS:  The DRR grants the requested relief. 

The DRB finds that the evidence of record and that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity and 
an impropriety that would justify an upgrade of the discharge. 

ISSUES:  The  applicant  was  discharged  with  a  general  service characterization  from  the  Air  Force  for 
misconduct  or  more  specifically,  conduct  prejudicial  to  good  order  and  discipline.  He  had  a  letter  of 
reprimand (LOR) for possessing alcohol as a minor (he was prosecuted  by civilian authorities), an LOR for 
failing a room  inspection, a record of individual  counseling (RIC) for failing to obey an order to study his 
technical orders (TOs), an Article  15 Ibr leaving his duty section without permission and for a false official 
statement  related  to his departure, and an Article  15 for  failure to  go for  being  over  an hour  late to work. 
Shortly  after arriving  at his duty  station (2 months),  the  applicant  injured  his back  severely enough to  be 
placed  on profile for over a year.  The injury  was  so severe, there  were  discussions  concerning a medical 
evaluation board  for the  applicant.  As  a result  of his injuries,  he was unable to perform  his maintenance 
duties and was required to perform light duty instead. 

CONCLUSIONS:  The  DRB  concludes  that  the  discharge  was  not  consistent  with  the  substantive  and 
procedural  requirements  of  the  discharge  regulation  and  was  an  abuse  of  discretion  by  the  discharge 
authority. 

It appeared to the DRB that the applicant was unjustly  and inequitably treated by the lcadership of his unit. 
From  the  beginning  of  his  testimony,  the  applicant  acknowledged  responsibility  for  his  misconduct. 
Therefore,  there  was  no  doubt  as  to  the  applicant's  actions. 
Indeed,  he  noted  that  his  discharge  was 
ultimately his own doing because had he not engaged in the misconduct, he would not have been subject to 
disciplinary  actions.  Ile felt, rather, he had  not  been  given  a chance to  prove  he could be a contributing 
member of the unit  and the Air Force.  In that regard, he was seeking what amounted to a second  chance. 
However, without  an  inequity  or  impropriety,  the  discharge  would  stand  and  the  applicant  would  not  be 
given  another  opportunity  to  serve.  The  focus,  then,  turned  to  the  actions  of  his  superiors.  The  DRB 
concluded that the applicant's superiors were taking disciplinary  action out of proportion to the misconduct 
and were taking disciplinary action in the absence of misconduct.  For example, the DRB felt the LOR for 
the  applicant's  first  failed  room  inspection  was  excessive.  The  RIC  for  failure  to  obey  an  order  was 
inappropriate because the evidence indicated that under the circumstances, the applicant did not actually fail 
to obey an order - the DRI3 was not convinced  the direction to read the TOs was understood to have been 
an order or even that it could properly  be considered an order.  The evidence indicated that the Article  15 
for  leaving work  without permission  and  for false statement  appeared  to be  based  on a misunderstanding 
rather than  an intent to deceive.  The genesis for the unit's  reaction  to the applicant's  behavior appears to 
have  been  the  back  injury.  The  applicant's  superiors were  simply reacting  to what  they  perceived  as a 
malingering airman.  The applicant was thought  to be  an airman who was not pulling his weight and who 
was more interested  in avoiding work than doing work.  In that  way,  the  applicant was prejudiced  by  the 

back injury.  When viewed in that  context, the harsh reactions to the applicant's  behavior and the apparent 
unwillingness  of the  unit  to work  with  the  applicant  make  sense.  Moreover, the exaggerated response to 
some of the applicant's  behavior  caused other incidents to take on even greater significance.  For example, 
an  Article  15 is  not  the  typical  response  for  a  first-time  failure  to  go.  Likewise,  while  an  LOR  is  an 
appropriate  response  to  a  civilian  arrest  for  drinking  under  age,  this  behavior  is  so  common  and  the 
circumstances of the  accused's  violation  were  so benign that  this misconduct would  not  have  served as a 
basis for discharge.  In the end, all of this led to the inequitable treatment  of the applicant and in~propriety 
in the administration of the disciplinary actions. 

'I'he  applicant's  presentation and demeanor convinced the DRB he deserved a second chance to contribute 
to the Air Force and serve his country.  At one point, the applicant stated, "If  I get my chance to go back in, 
I will give my 200 percent and I can assure you of that."  The DRB is taking the applicant at his word and 
will grant the opportunity for him to give his 200 percent. 

Having found inequity and impropriety, the DRB grants the requested relief and orders the characterization 
of service to be upgraded  to honorable, that the reason and authority for discharge be changed to Secretarial 
Authority, and that the RE Code be changed to 3K. 

Attachment: 
Examiner's Brief 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

AIR  FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 

ANDREWS AFB, 'MD 

(Former AB)  (HGH AMN) 

1.  MATTER UNDER REVIEW:  Appl  r e c r d  a GEN Disch fr USAF  00/05/24 UP AFI 36-3208, 
para 5.50.2 (Misconduct -  Conduct prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline). 
Appeals for Honorable Discharge, to Change the RE Code, and Reason and Authority 
for Discharge. 
2 .  BACKGROUND : 

a. DOB: 79/05/13.  Enlmt Age: 19 3/12.  Disch Age: 21 0/12. Educ:HS DTPL. 

AFQT: N/A.  A-41%  E-65,  G-64,  M-81. PAFSC: 2A531G -  Aerospace Maintenance 
Specialist. DAS: 99/05/20. 

b.  Prior Sv: (1) AFRes 98/09/12 -  98/12/15 ( 3   months 4 days) (Inactive). 

3 .   SERVICE UNDER REVIEW: 

a.  Enlisted as AB 98/12/16 for %  yrs. Svd: 01 Y r s   05 Mo 09 Das, all AMS. 

b.  Grade Status:  AB  -  00/04/27 (Article 15,  00/04/27) 

AMN  -  99/06/16 

c.  Time Lost:  none. 

d.  Art 15's:  (1) 00/04/27, Grand Forks AFB, ND  -  Article 86.  You, did, 
on or about 12 April 00, without authority, fail to go 
at the time prescribed to your appointed place of duty. 
Reduction to AB,  forfeiture of $465.00 pay, and 14 days 
extra duty. (No appeal)  (No mitigation) 

( 2 )  00/03/16, Grand Forks, ND -  Article 86.  You, did, on 

or about 01 Mar 00, without authority, go from your 
appointed place of duty.  Article 107.  You, did, on or 
about 01 Mar 00, with intent to deceive, make to TSgt  - 
- A - v -   an official statement, to wit: that you had a 
physical therapy appointment at  0930, which statement 
was totally false, and was known by you to be so false. 
Restriction to Grand Forks AFB for 3 0   days, and 15 days 
extra duty.  (No appeal)  (No mitigation) 

e.  Additional: ROC, 31 JAN 00 -  Failure to obey a lawful order. 

LOR, 27 JAN 00 -  Failed inspection. 
LOR, 09 DEC 99 -  Civil arrest for possessing alcoholic 

beverages under age. 

f.  CM:  none. 

g .   Record of SV: none. 

(Discharged from Grand Forks AFB) 

h.  Awards  &  Decs:  AFTR. 

i.  Stmt of  Sv:  TMS:  (01) Yrs  (08) Mos  (13) Das 
TAMS:  (01) Yrs  ( 0 5 )  Mos  ( 0 9 )   Das 

4 .   BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW:  Appln  (DD Fm 293) dtd 02/04/24. 

(Change Discharge to Honorable, Change the RE Code, and Change the Reason 

and Authority  for Discharge) 

Issue 1:  I would  like to review and discuss all medical records from my 

time of  service. 

Issue 2:  I would like to review and discuss the events surrounding  my 

discharge. 

Issue 3 :   The reason f o r   requesting nry  discharge upgrade is specifically for 

my reenlistment into the armed forces. 

ATCH 
none. 

1 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR  F O ~ E  

HEADQUARTERS 3 1 BTH AIR  REFUELING WIN6 (AMC) 

GRAND FORKS AIR  FORCE BASE, NORTH DAKOTA 

MEMORANDUM FOR 319 ARW/CC 

FROM: 319 ARW/ JA 

SUBJECT: AFI 36-3208 Discharge Legal Review 

1. We have reviewed and found legally sufficient the attached AFI 36-3208 discharge package, 
contingent upon the inclusion of  a medical report clearing the respondent for separation. The 
respondent is eligible for separation per AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.50.2 (pattern of misconduct 
prejudicial to good order and discipline), and should be separated with a general discharge. 

2.  319 AGS/CC initiated this action on 18 Apr 00 because the respondent has willfully 
committed the following acts of  misconduct: 

a.  On or about 12 Apr 00, without authority, he failed to go at the time prescribed 
to his appointed place of  duty, to wit:  Building 629.  For this misconduct he received an 
Article 15 dated 27 Apr 00.  His punishment consisted of  reduction to the grade of  airman 
basic, forfeiture of  $465.00 pay, and 14 days of extra duty.  (Attachment A) 

b.  On or about 1 Mar 00, without a;th&ty,  he went from his appointed place of 

duty, to wit:  Building 629.  Further, on or about 1 Mar 00, he made a false official 
statement to his supervisor stating he had a physical therapy appointment at 0930.  For 
this misconduct, he received an Article 15 dated 16 Mar 00.  His punishment consisted of 
30 days restriction to Grand Forks AFB, 15 days extra duty, and the establishment of an 
Unfavorable Information File.  (Attachment B) 

c.  On 28 Jan 00, he failed to obey a lawful order given to him by his supervisor to 
read technical orders relating to the core tasks in his Career Field Education and Training 
Plan.  For this misconduct, he received an ROC dated 31 Jan 00.  (Attachment C) 

d.  On 6 Jan 00, he failed an inspection of  his dormitory room.  For this, he 

received an LOR dated 27 Jan 00.  (Attachment D) 

e. On or about 4 Dec 99, he was arrested downtown for the offense of  being a 

minor in possession of  alcohol. For this misconduct, he received an LOR dated 9 Dec 99. 
(Attachment E) 

3.  The respondent is subject to discharge per AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.50.2 (pattern of 
misconduct prejudicial to good order and discipline). 319 AGSS/CC recommends a general 
discharge without probation and rehabilitation. 

4.  The respondent is 20 years old and began his first and only four-year enlistment on 16 Dec 98. 
He has not yet received an EPR.  The respondent consulted with counsel and waived his rights to 
submit a statement on his own behalf. 

- 

5.  Since this is a notification case, the respondent may receive only an honorable or general 
discharge, unless you choose to refer this case to a discharge board.  The respondent's  repeated 
incidents of  misconduct are significant negative aspects of  his service record that far outw 
any period of  satisfactory duty performance. 
shown he is not willing to change his beha 
. None of  these r 
as proven that he cannot live up to the standard 

ts of  misconduct b 

member of  the Air Force and that he should be discharged.  Because of the seriousness and 
frequency of  the misconduct, the respondent should receive a general discharge.  No substantive 
or procedural errors have materially prejudiced the respondent's  rights in this case. 

6.  Lf you determine that the allegations against the respondent support discharge and that he 
should be discharged, you must decide whether or not his discharge should be suspended for a 
period of  probation and rehabilitation (P&R).  P&R is appropriate when it appears the a' ~rrnan 
can change his pattern of  behavior.  In this case, retention on active duty would not be consistent 
with the maintenance of  good order and discipline.. We do not recommend this respondent 
receive P&R. 

7. As SPCM separation authority, you may: 

a.  Retain the respondent; 

b.  Approve the respondent's separation with a general discharge with or without probation 

and rehabilitation; 

c.  Forward the case to 15 AF/CC recommending separation with an honorable discharge with 

or without probation and rehabilitation; or 

d.  Direct reinitiation of  the action if  you determine that an under other than honorable 

conditions discharge is the only appropriate service characterization in this case. 

8. I recommend you approve the respondent's separation with a general discharge without P&R. 

I concur. 

0 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR  FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS. 3 l STH AIR  REFUELING WING (AMC) 

GRAND FORKS AIR  FORCE BASE.  NORTH DAKOTA 

0 5  MAY  2000 

FROM:  319 AGS/CCQ 

SUBJECT:  Notification Letter 

1. I am recommending your discharge from the United States Air ~ o i c e  for a pattern of 
misconduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. The authority for this action is 
AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208 in accordance with paragraph 5.50.2.  If  my 
recommendation is approved, your service will be characterized as honorable or 
general.  I am recommending that your service be characterized as general. 

2.  My reasons for this action are: 

a, On or about 12 Apr 00, without authority, you failed to go at the time 

prescribed to your appointed place of duty, t ~ w i t :  Building 629.  For this misconduct 
you received an Article 15 dated 27 Apr 00.  Your punishment consisted of reduction to 
the grade of airman basic, forfeiture of  N65.00 pay, and 14 days of  extra duty. 
(Attachment A) 

b.  On or about 1 Mar 00, without authority, you went from your appointed place 

of duty, to wit:  Building 629.  Further, on or about 1 Mar 00, you made a false official 
statement to your supervisor stating you had a physical therapy appointment at 0930. 
For this misconduct, you received an Article 15 dated 16 Mar 00.  Your punishment 
consisted of  30 days restriction to Grand Forks AFB, 15 days extra duty, and an 
Unfavorable Information File was established. (Attachment B) 

c.  On 28 Jan 00, you failed to obey a lawful order given to you by your 

supervisor to read technical orders relating to the core tasks in your Career Field 
Education and Training Plan.  For this misconduct, you received an ROC dated 31 Jan 
00.  (Attachment C) 

d.  On 6 Jan 00, you failed an inspection of  your dormitory room.  For this, you 

received an LOR dated 27 Jan 00.  (Attachment D) 

e. On or about 4 Dec 99, you were arrested downtown for the offense of  being a 

minor in possession of  alcohol.  For this misconduct, you received an LOR dated 
9 Dec 99.  (Attachment E) 
3.  Copies of  the documents to be forwarded to the separation authority in support of 
this recommendation are attached.  The commander exercising SPCM jurisdiction or a 

1 

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. 

4.  You have the right to consult counsel.  Military legal counsel has been obtained to 
assist you.  You have been scheduled an appointment at the Office of  the Area Defense 
Counsel at Building 306 on 
counsel at your own expense. 

hours.  You may consult civilian 

at \mo 

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 &b&t('%8 
hours 
unless you request and receive an extension for good cause showi. 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 sch  uled for a medical examination. You must report to the 319th 
Medical Group on \I 

hours for the examination. 

&)  at  %& 

8.  Deliver to me immediately your military identification card(s). I have requested that 
your temporary identificatio  card(s) be issued IAW AFI 36-3026(I), paragraph 4.2. You 
will report to me by COB 
temporary identification card($), 

, to verify that you have received your 

0 

9.  Any personal information you furnish in rebuttal is covered by the Privacy Act of 
1974.  A Privacy Act statement is attached.  A copy of  AFI 36-3208 is available for your 
use in the squadron orderly room. 

10. Execute the attached acknowledgment and return it to'me immediately. 

4 Attachments: 
1. Privacy Act Statement 
2.  Supporting Documents 

a.  Article 15 dated 27 Apr 00 
b.  Article 15 dated 16 Mar 00 
c. ROC dated 31 Jan 00 
d. LOR dated 27 Jan 00 
e.  LOR dated 9 Dec 99 

3.  Respondent's  Data 
4.  Personnel Data