NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

 

AFSN/SSAN

;onea

GRADE

AMN

 

 

PERSONAL APPEARANCE

X RECORD REVIEW

 

 

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

125 SOUTH MAIN, ROOM 1B28
MUSKOGEE, OK 47701

 

 

MEMBERS SITTING

 

 

| voTHC”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
   

ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

  

 

LETTER OF NOTIFICATION

 

ISSUES INDEX NUMBER
A94.53 A67.90
HEARING DATE CASE NUMBER
03-01-10 FD2002-0245

 

 REDGANTS SUE

: sande
: Ges é Bes

 

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

submit an application to the AFBCMR.

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

 

 

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 (EF-V2)

    
 
  
 

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to

 

biG] be

 
      
    
  
 

BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE

COUNSEL’S RELEASE TO THE BOARD

ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

  

 

 

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

 

 

NATURE OF BOARD PRES

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

1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3°? FLOOR

ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

Previous edition will be used.
CASE NUMBER

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE | gp 002-0245

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board 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 or that provided by applicant substantiates an inequity
or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for misconduct, conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. He had
three Letters of Reprimand (LOR), four Records of Individual Counseling, and an Article 15. He had one
Enlisted Performance Report rated an overall “3.” His misconduct included multiple instances of failure to
go and dereliction of duty, as well as failure to obey a lawful order, military dress and appearance
violations, and driving under the influence of alcohol. These occurred over a 17-month period of time. The
Board noted that when his misconduct occurred, member was the same age as other airmen who had
adhered to the standards, and in spite of the unit’s efforts to help member correct his deficiencies, he was
not motivated enough to conform to standards and his misconduct continued. At the time of the discharge,
applicant waived his right to submit statements on his own behalf, after consulting counsel. He was
counseled by his unit several times in an effort to help him correct his deficiencies and had many
opportunities to improve his behavior. He failed to respond to those rehabilitative efforts, so he was held
accountable for his actions. No inequity or impropriety was found in this discharge in the course of the
records review.

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
FD2002-0245
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
ANDREWS AFB, MD

2eE (Former AMN) (HGH AMN)

1. MATTER UNDER REVIEW: Appl rec'd a GEN Disch fr USAF 00/03/08 UP AFI 36-3208,
para 5.50.2 (Misconduct - Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline).
Appeals for Honorable Disch.

2. BACKGROUND:

a. DOB: 79/01/26. Enlmt Age: 18 6/12. Disch Age: 21 1/12. Educ: HS DIPL.
AFOT: N/A. A-68, E-53, G-46, M-48. PAFSC: 3E731 - Fire Protection Apprentice.
DAS: 98/05/20.

b. Prior Sv: (1) AFRes 97/08/07 ~ 97/11/18 (3 months 12 days) (Inactive).

3. SERVICE UNDER REVIEW:
a. Enlisted as AB 97/11/19 Svd: 02 Yrs 03 Mo 20 Das, all AMS.
b. Grade Status: AMN - 99/04/30

AB - 98/10/30 (Article 15, 98/10/30)
AMN - 98/05/19

c. Time Lost: none.

d. Art 15’s: (1) 98/10/30, Columbus AFB, MS - Article 111. You, did, on
or about 16 Oct 98, on B Street, physically control a
vehicle, to wit: a pickup truck, while the alcohol
concentration of your breath wag .10 grams of alcohol
per 210 liters of breath or greater, as shown by

chemical analysis. Reduction to Airman. Suspended ————.

forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 2 months.
Twenty days extra duty. (No appeal) (No mitigation)

e. Additional: LOR, 10 FEB 00 - Dereliction of duty.

MFR, 10 DEC 99 - Failure to meet training deadlines.

LOR, 05 OCT 99 - Dereliction of duty by not maintaining
proper military dress and appearance
standards.

LOR, 04 AUG 99 ~ Failure to go on two occasions.

RIC, 07 JUL 99 ~- Failure to obey a lawful order.

RIC, 25 JUN 99 - Missed three days of off duty mandatory
study. Left early from mandatory off duty
study time without permission.

RIC, 19 JUN 99 - Late for duty.

RIC, 29 SEP 98 - Failure to complete assigned duties.

£. CM: None.
FD2002-0245
g. Record of SV: 97/11/19 - 99/10/22 Columbus AFB 3 = (Initial)
(Discharged from Columbus AFB)
h. Awards & Decs: AFTR.

i. Stmt of Sv: TMS: (02) Yra (07) Mos (02) Das
TAMS: (02) Yrs (03) Mos (20) Das

4. BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW: Appln (DD Fm 293) dtd 02/05/11.
(Change Discharge to Honorable)

Issue 1: Father a disabled Vet was in hospital after a major heart attack.
Son went home without thinking. Was charged AWOL.

Since he works with the comunity (sic) and assists the American Legion.

ATCH
1. DD Form 214.
2. SF 80, Request Pertaining to Military Records.

02/09/12/ia
* PDp2002- ORFF

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMAND

 

MEMORANDUM FOR 14 FTW/CC 23 FEB ann

FROM: 14 FTW/JA (Capt Guerrero)

SUBJECT: Legal Review of Administrative Discharge he
CES)

1. Overview: On 15 Feb 00, 14 CES/CC initiated discharge action against aie
(herein, the respondent) for a Pattern of Misconduct, specifically, Conduct Prejudicial to
Good Order and Discipline, in accordance with AFI 36-3208, para. 5.50.2. On 18 Feb 00,

- after consulting with his defense counsel, the respondent waived his right to submit
matters for your consideration (See Atch 3 of Discharge Package). 14 CES/CC
recommends you separate the respondent with a general discharge without probation and
rehabilitation. After review, we concur.

2. Personal History: The respondent is 20 years old and single. On, 19 Nov 97, he
enlisted in the Air Force for a four-year term. Columbus AFB is his first duty assignment.
He has one Enlisted Performance Report with an overall rating of 3.

3. Facts: The salient facts from the respondent’s file are as follows:

a. On 28 Sep 98, the respondent failed to complete his assigned duties. For this,
his Crew Chief gave him a record of counseling, AF Form 174, 29 Sep 98.

b. On 16 Oct 98, the respondent was caught on base driving his vehicle while
under the influence of alcohol. For this, the former 14 CES/CC imposed nonjudicial
punishmeit under Article 15, UCMI on him. His piiiishmeént consisted of a reduction to
airman basic, suspended forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 2 months, and 20 days
extra duty, Article 15, 30 Oct 98.

 

c. On 14 Jun 99, the respondent left from his place of duty early without
authority. For this, his supervisor verbally counseled him, see reference in record of
counseling, AF Form 174, 25 Jun 99. ;

d. On 19 Jun 99, the respondent failed to report to his place of duty at the
prescribed time. He was 50 minutes late. For this, the Assistant Chief of Operations of
the Fire Department gave him a record of counseling, AF Form 174, 19 Jun 99.

e. On 16, 18, and 20 Jun 99, the respondent failed to go to mandatory study time.
For this, his supervisor gave him a record of counseling, AF Form 174, 25 Jun 99.
Py 2002-0 ZS

f. On 7 Jul 99, the respondent failed to obey an order given to him by a
noncommissioned officer to fix his stripes on his battle dress uniform. For this, his
supervisor gave him a record of counseling, AF Form 174, 7 Jul 99.

g. On 31 Jul 99, the respondent failed to report to his place of duty at the
prescribed time, He was about 30 minutes late. For this, the Assistant Chief of
Operations of the Fire Department gave him a letter of reprimand (LOR), 4 Aug 99.

h. On 19 Sep 99, the respondent was derelict in the performance of his duties by
failing to meet military dress and appearance standards. Specifically, he appeared at roll
call with a wrinkled uniform and an unshaven face. For this, the current 14 CES/CC gave
him an LOR, 5 Oct 99.

i. On 2 Dec 99, the respondent failed to meet a deadline to complete the P-22
pumper license training. For this, his supervisor verbally counseled him, MFR 10 Dec 99.

j. On 4 Feb 00, the respondent’s dormitory room was found to be completely
unsatisfactory during an inspection that he had been warned about. In fact, after the

“inspection he told his first sergeant that he did not care about the condition of his room.
For this, 14 CES/CC gave him another LOR, 10 Feb 00. —

4. Matters Submitted by the Respondent: After consulting with defense counsel, the
respondent waived his right to submit matters for your consideration.

5. Discussion:

a. Legal Sufficiency. Airmen are subject to discharge for a pattern of misconduct,

conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline, when there is a preponderance of the

- evidence that the respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct that included conduct of
a nature that tended to disrupt order, discipline, or morale within the military community.

~ This type of misconduct usually involves causing dissent, ‘disruption, and degradation of
mission effectiveness (AFI 36-3208, para. 5.50.2). The evidence in this case shows a
pattern of misconduct that disrupted good order and discipline. In September of 1998, the
respondent started the disruption off by being derelict in the performance his duties and
for which he received a record of counseling. Just a few weeks later, he was caught
driving under the influence of alcohol. To punish him for this serious crime and in attempt
to turn him around, the former 14 CES/CC imposed nonjudicial punishment on the ~
respondent under Article 15, UCMJ. The punishment consisted of a reduction to airman
basic, suspended forfeiture of pay, and 20 days extra duty. This slowed him down for a
little while but he then continued to engage in additional misconduct. During the months
of June and July of 1999, the respondent received four counselings and a reprimand for
leaving work early, not showing up for work on time on several occasions, and disobeying
an order. He again temporarily stopped the string of misconduct, but then started up
again. He showed up for roll call unshaven and with a wrinkled uniform. The current
* Ppase2-02¢S

14 CES/CC then became personally involved by giving the respondent a stern LOR stating
he would not tolerate this type of behavior any longer. Unfortunately, this did not deter
the respondent. The final straw came when after being warned of an upcoming room
inspection, the respondent’s room was a mess, Worse yet, when the respondent’s first
sergeant questioned him about the room, the respondent told him that he was aware of the
inspection but he did not care. At this point, 14 CES/CC gave him another LOR and
initiated these discharge proceedings.

In summary, notwithstanding all of these rehabilitative attempts, the respondent
has continued to commit misconduct and disrupt good order and discipline. The evidence
is more than sufficient to support this discharge action.

 

| b. Characterization of Service: Separation for a pattern of misconduct may result

| in an honorable, general, or under other than honorable conditions (JOTHC) discharge,

| In this case, the respondent’s repeated misconduct makes an honorable discharge

! inappropriate. The only issue remaining is whether the respondent’s misconduct merits a
UOTHC or a general discharge. A general discharge is appropriate when a member’s
service has been honest and faithful, but significant negative aspects of the member’s
service outweigh the positive aspects (AFI 36-3208, para. 1.18.2), A UOTHC discharge

~ 1s appropriate when the member’s service is a significant departure from the conduct
expected of airmen (AFI 36-3208, para. 1.18.3). 14 CES/CC recommends the respondent
receive a general discharge characterization. We agree. Here, the numerous infractions
committed by the respondent qualify as significant negative aspects of his short career
outweighing any positive aspects but they are not serious enough to warrant a UOTHC
discharge. Accordingly, a general discharge is appropriate.

c. Training and Feedback: The squadron reviewed the respondent’s training
records and feedback schedule and found no significant discrepancies.

d. Probation and Rehabilitation (P&R): First of all, the respondent has not
requested P&R. Secondly, by continually ignoring the various rehabilitative attempts put
forth by his chain of command, the respondent has shown heecither-cannot or wilt not be———_—
rehabilitated. P&R is appropriate where there is strong evidence the member could
overcome his deficiencies and complete his enlistment. This is not the case here. After
numerous attempts to turn the respondent around, his commander is now convinced that
the respondent does not have rehabilitation potential in the Air Force. We concur.

 

Bottom line with respect to P&R, based on all of the chances the respondent has
already been given, the commander believes probation and rehabilitation for this
respondent would be a waste of time. We agree.

6. Commander’s Options: As the separation authority you may:

a. Direct the respondent be retained;
o. FDRe02-CYS

b. Direct the respondent be discharged with.a general discharge, with or without
the opportunity for P&R;

c. Recommend the respondent be discharged with an honorable discharge and
forward the package with your justification to HQ 19 AF/CC for approval; or

 

d. Forward this case to a discharge board if you believe a UOTHC is appropriate.

7. Recommendation: 14 FTW/CC direct the respondent be separated from the Air —
Force with a general discharge without P&R.

{.
FD 2002- O2¢S

h. On 19 Sep 99, you were derelict in the performance of your duties by failing to meet military
dress and appearance standards. Specifically, you appeared at roll call with a wrinkled uniform and
an unshaven face. For this, I personally gave you a letter of reprimand (See Atch 7).

i, On 2 Dec 99, you failed to meet a deadline to complete the P-22 pumper license training. For
this, your supervisor verbally counseled you (See Atch 8).

j. On 4 Feb 00, your dormitory room was found to be completely unsatisfactory during an
inspection that you had warning about. In fact, after the inspection you even told your first sergeant
that.you didn’t care about the condition of your room. For this, I personally gave you another letter
of reprimand
(See Atch 9).

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 higher authority
will decide whether you will be discharged or retained in the Air Force and, if you are discharged,
how your discharge will be characterized. If you are discharged, you will be ineligible for
reenlistment in the Air Force and any special pay, bonus, or education assistance funds may be
subject to recoupment.

4. You have the right to consult counsel. Military legal counsel has been obtained to assist you. I

have made an appointment for you to consult either @QRRANNGrOr SRM by telephone on

I5 Fegoo at 1430 . The telephone number for Defense Counsel at Keesler AFB is DSN
597-2429 or (228) 377-2429. You may consult civilian counsel at your own expense.

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 COB __i@ €¢B oo (three workdays from
your receipt of this notification memorandum) 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 Columbus AFB
Clinic, Physical Exam Section at 0930 on 16 Feb 00 for the examination.

8. Any personal information you furnish in rebuttal is covered by the Privacy Act. A copy.of AFT
36-3208 is available for your use in your unit orderly room. .

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

AF Form 174, 29 Sep 98
AF Form 3070, 30 Oct 98
AF Form 174, 25 Jun 99
AF Form 174, 19 Jun 99
AF Form 174, 7 Jul 99
LOR, 4 Aug 99

LOR, 5 Qct 99

MFR, 10°Dec 99

. LOR, 10 Feb00 |

0. Airman’s Receipt of Notification Memorandum

MAM SYN