AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

 

 
 

 

  
  
 

 

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSN/SSAN
A1C agai
TYPE
GEN X PERSONAL APPEARANCE RECORD REVIEW
COUNSEL: . NAME OF COUNSEL ANP OR ORGANIZATION ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL ~

   

The American Legion

 

 

 

VOTE OF THE BOARD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEMBERS SITTING HON GEN VOTHC | OTHER DENY
xX
{oo ou |
xX kk a
+
X
X*
X
ISSUES INDEX NUMBER EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
A94.05 A67.00 1 | ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
A49.00 2 | APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 | LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
HEARING DATE CASE NUMBER 4 | BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
Zs 7 La
052203 FD2002-0262 a COUNSEL’S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING ~

 

 

 

ae
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARIYS DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARF DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE.

 

REMARKS
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

*Change reason for discharge to "Secretarial Authority"
** Change reason to Unsatisfactory Performance"

Advise the applicant of the Board's decision and the right to submit an application to the Air Force Board for the
Correction of Military Records.

 

 

 

INDORSEMENT —_ | DATE: 060203

 

 

 

 

 

FROM:
SAF/MIBR SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 AJR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742 1535 COMMAND DR, FE WING, 3° FLOOR
ANDREWS APB, MB 20762-7002

 

 

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 ({EF-V2) Previous edition wil] be used.
CASE NUMBER

   

   

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD2002-0262

  
   

  

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable and for a change of the reason
for discharge to unsatisfactory performance.

  
   
   

The applicant appeared, with counsel, before the Board on 22 May 2003.

  

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

  
 

FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge and change of reason for discharge are denied.

  
   

  

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

   

The applicant’s issues are listed in the attached brief.

 
      

Issue 1, Applicant contends that before she was separated from the Air Force, she was told that if she failed
her CDC test, she would be given an honorable discharge. On the other hand, she received a “general under
honorable conditions discharge” and the reason stated on her DD Form 214 is “misconduct.” The
information provided by the applicant and contained in her records was carefully reviewed by the DRB.
The misconduct included reporting late to work, reporting to work out of uniform, leaving her place of
residence while on quarters, failing to promptly return the shop copy of her CDCs to her supervisor, failing
to perform her job properly, and wearing unauthorized hair accouterments. The records indicated the
applicant received thirteen forms of administrative/rehabilitative action including seven letters of
counseling and three letters of reprimand. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the
applicant had ample opportunities to change her negative behavior, but apparently chose not to do so. The
Board concluded that the misconduct outweighed the otherwise satisfactory performance of this member.
The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

 
   
     
   
   
   
   
   
   
     
 

Issue 2. The applicant asserts that had she passed the CDC test, she would not have been discharged, much
less receive a “misconduct discharge.” Because the Board had no evidence to consider in order to
determine the validity of this claim and could not speculate on its relevance, the Board decided this issue
against the respondent.

 
   
   
 
  

  

Issue 3. The applicant disputed the reason for her separation—misconduct—and stated that she deserves an
honorable discharge. The applicant stated that at no time during the discharge process was she aware that
misconduct was a possible reason for her separation. On the other hand, she asserted that the only reason
she would have been separated was for failure of her CDC exams. This argument is without merit. The
case file is replete with evidence that the respondent knew from the outset of the administrative discharge
process that a reason for her proposed separation was misconduct. The notification letter, served on the
respondent by her commander on 9 June 1998, accurately states that misconduct is one of the reasons the
commander was initiating the involuntary separation action pursuant to AFI 36-3208, Administrative
Separation of Airmen. In fact, the notification letter annotates misconduct as the “primary reason” for the
involuntary administrative discharge action. On 9 June 1998, the respondent signed a memorandum
addressed to her commander in which the respondent acknowledged the receipt of the notification letter and
her rights pertaining to the discharge action. On 15 June 1998, after receiving an extension to submit
matters in her own behalf, the respondent submitted a four-page Jetter rebutting the reason for the
separation.

During her personal appearance, the respondent admitted, under oath, that although some of the misconduct
was “nit-picky,” she did deserve the disciplinary actions taken in response to some of the instances of
misconduct. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by her performance
reports, letters of recommendation, and other information contained in the records. 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 misconduct.

Issue 3. The applicant requests that the reason (misconduct) for her discharge be changed to unsatisfactory
performance. The applicant concludes that she should not be labeled with “Misconduct.” The DRB opined
that the primary reason for discharge, misconduct, was appropriate. Although the respondent was also
notified that a reason for the involuntary separation action was unsatisfactory duty performance—tesulting
from her failure of her CDC exams—it was not the primary reason. The Board concluded that even though
the respondent unsatisfactorily completed her CDCs, her misconduct had a greater impact on her separation.

CONCLUSIONS: The Board concludes that the discharge was processed in substantial compliance with
the applicable regulatory guidance, was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and 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 or change of reason for discharge, and 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
FD2002~-0262 '

(Former A1C) (REHEARING)

 

1. MATTER UNDER REVIEW: Appl rec’d a Gen Dish fr USAF 98/06/25
UP AFI 36-3208, para 5.47 & 5.26.3 (Unsatisfactory Duty

Performance & Minor Disciplinary Infractions). Appeals for HON
Disch.

2. OTHER FACTS:
a. See attached cy of Examiner’s Brief dtd 98/12/23.

b. The AFDRB reviewed case on 99/04/09 (non-appearance w/0
counsel) & concluded applicant’s discharge should not be changed.

3. BASIS ADVANCED FOR REHEARING: Appl (DD Fm 293) dtd 02/05/05.
(Change Discharge to Hon).

ISSUE 1: I was discharged because I failed the required CDC Test
given to me. I was told that if I failed the test, I would be
given an Honorable Discharge from the Air Force. When I failed
the test, I was given a General Under Honorable Discharge and
reason stated on my DD214 was MISCONDUCT.

ISSUE 2: If I had passed the CDC test, I would NOT have been
discharged at all!! Much less,a misconduct discharge.

ISSUE 3: So I dispute the MISCONDUCT reason of Discharge and
believe I deserve the discharge of Honorable that is given to

airman who fail the CDC test and are discharged from active duty
military.

Atch

1. Personal Written Statement
2. DD Form 214

02/09/24/er
: Fp200z— 226Z_

FD-98-00417
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
ANDREWS AFB, MD

aa (Former A1C) S 6S

1. MATTER UNDER REVIEW: Appl rec'd a GEN Disch fr USA
para 5.47 & 5.26.3 (Unsatisfa rmance & Mind?
Infractions). Appeals for Honorable Disch.

 
  
  

UP AFI 36-3208,
Disciplinary

 

 

2. BACKGROUND: _.. -

 
   
 
 
   

a. DOB? 73/09/13./Enlmt Age: 20 10/12. Disch Age: 24 9/12. Educ: HS DIPL.
AFQT: N/A M A-8 -46, E-34. PAFSC: 1T131 - Aircrew Life Support Apprentice.
DAS: 95/05/3

  

b. Prior Sv: AFRes 94/07/29 - 95/02/07 (6 months 9 days) (Inactive),

3. SERVICE UNDER REVIEW;

a. Enld as AB 95/02/08 for 4 yrs. Svd: 3 Yrs 4 Mo 18 Das, all AMS.

eee

b. Grade Statusr—aAiC - 96/06/08
AMN - Unknown

c. Time Lost: none.
qd. Art 15’s: none.
e. CM: none.

£. Record of SV: 95/02/08 96/10/07 McChord AFB 3. (Initial)
96/10/08 97/08/05 McChord AFB 4 (CRO)
97/08/06 98/05/15 McChord AFB 2 (Cmdr Dir) REF

(Discharged from McChord AFB)
g. Awards & Decs: AFTR, NDSM, AFOUA W/1 DEV, AFGCM.

h. Stmt of Sv: TMS: (3) Yrs (10) Mos (27) Das
TAMS: (3) Yrs (4) Mos (18) Das

4. BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW: Appln (DD Fm 293) dtd 98/08/08.
(Change Discharge to Honorable)

Issue 1: My letter of rebuttal concerning my discharge should have been
included in my discharge package.

ATCHS
None.

98/12/23/ia
io , ZO 3
- @ ~~ Ze 2

 

U.S. AIR FORCE
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS 62D AIRLIFT WING (AMC)
19 Jun 98 1947-1597

MEMORANDUM FOR 62 AW/CC

FROM: 62 AW/JA

cd

SUBJECT: Legal Review of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen
Administrative Discharge - Al

  

1. On 9 June 1998, 62 OSS/CC initiated this administrative discharge action against AlC QF
ae: the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, Chapter 5,
e

clion EF, paragraph 5.26.3, for unsatisfactory duty performance — failure to progress in on-the-
job training (OJT) and Section H, paragraph 5.49, for minor disciplinary infractions (primary
basis). Ke ae properly notified of this action and informed of her right to counsel an
her right to submit statements. After consulting with counsel, AlC Shoop submitted statements.

62 OSS/CC recommends that AIC Pereceive a general discharge without probation and
rehabilitation. : or

2. FACTS: 62 OSS/CC initiated this discharge action based on the following incidents, which
occurred during A1C Shoop’s current enlistment, which began on 8 February 1995:

a. Paragraph 5.26.3 — unsatisfactory duty performance — failure to progress in on-the-job
(OJT) training:

(1) On or about 25 March 1998, AC QR scored {50)n her 2"4 Career Development
Course (CE) exam thereby failing to meet the minimum passing score of 65. For this failure,
Extension Course Institute (ECI) Air University disenrolled ALCP com the Career
Development Course, and Al CERBMPsupervisor, unit training monitor, and commander
personally counseled her. In addition, 62 OSS/CC initiated this involuntary discharge action.

(2) On or about 12 November 1997, A1C aecored 58 gh her 1* Career
Development Course (CE) exam thereby failing to meet the minimum passing score of 65. For
this failure, her supervisor, unit training monitor, and commander personally counseled her. In
addition, her unit scheduled her to retake the test.

(3) On or about 23 October 1996, Al CApcored 162°) her 1 Career Development
Course (CE) exam thereby failing to meet the minimum passin: re of 65. For this failure,
Extension Course Institute (ECI) Air University disenrolled A1C from the Career
Development Course because the time allotted (12 months from date of enrollment) to complete
her CDCs had expired. Her unit later had her CDC enrollment reactivated.

Golden Legacy, Boundless Future...Your Nation's Air Force
b. Paragraph 5.49 — minor disciplinary infractions (primary basis):

(1) On or about 18 April 1998, A1C Silly reported to Work out of uniform. For this
offense, A1C Shoop received a I{etter of Reprimand dated 24 Apel T97)

   

(2) On or about 13 February. 1998, Al » was.60 ) days delinquent on her AAFES
DPP account. For this offense, her unit verbally counseled her.)

NT eRe Ham

(3) On or about 9 January 1998, A Cigar ves late-for.duty. For this offense, i
AIC Shoop nereied a a Letter of Reprimand dated 13 January 1998. | ;

(4) Onor about 5 ; January 1998, Al CM failed to return to work after her one-hour |
lunch break. Specifically, AIC ft for lunch at 0345 hours and did not return until 0630

ho se, AlC 3igew supervisor verbally counseled her, as documented in a '
cM for Record. 4

(5) One or about 2 October 1997, A1C jig was given the day offte- BMD fried to ake
Career Development Course exam (CE). On or about 3 October 1997, A1C QQ failed to take
_the CDC test. For this offense, A1C @qgjiiMpreceived a Letter of Reprinia -8-October-

tr

"1997, ——

  
 

 

 

NAP ae ear

 

eden is,

(6) On or about 25 August 1997, A1C (jp failed to remain at her place of residence
while on quarters. For this offense, Al CAMB eceived a Letter of Counseling dated 25 August
1997. -

 

(7) On or about 24 April 1997, A1C Qgiiiiiileft for lunch 15 minutes early and returned
from lunch 15 minutes late. Specifically, A1C¢ eft for lunch at 0945 hours when her
authorized expanded lunch hour started at 1000 hours and she returned from lunch at 1215 hours
when her funch hour ended at 1200 hours. For this offense, AlC Qj received a Letter of
Counseling dated 28 April 1997.

ae

(8) On or about 28 January 1997, Al CéQg§pdisobeyed an order from her supervisor, in
that she failed to return the shop copy of the CDCs to her supervisor after being ordered to do so.
For this infraction, A1C WMPPreceived a Letter of Counseling dated 28 January 1997.

 

 

 

(9) On or about 13 December 1996, A1C Qmpwas derelict in the performance of her
duties by using improper lifting practices, failing to perform her job as briefed to her upon her
initial assignment to the float section, and her lack of initiative when loading the truck.

Al WEpreceived a Letter of Counseling on 19 December 1996.
SR er eee

(10) On or about 26 November 1998; ~A\Cet work at 1215 hours to take her
child to Madigan Army Medical Center (0 i t about 27 November 1996, mint
told her NCOIC that she had-takeii her chil to MAMC 0 26 November 1996, when, in fact, she
. .  2- ORS
_ 2 e FD208 K- OAR

a aaypt onrb

(11) On or about 18 January 1996, Al Cg@iwore an unfuthorized hair tie. FoDthis
offense, A1C Shoop received a Letter of Counseling dated 18 January.1996. 0. ~

(12) On or about 11 December 1995, A1 C¥gjgiiifivore an unauth ‘ized hair oe this
offense, AlC Shoop received a Letter of Counseling dated 11 December Gos a

ae et
i a8 0 TEE

(13) On or about 12 July 1995, ALC @@@RMwrote a check to AAFES in the amount of
$3.39 and thereafter failed to maintain sufficient funds to cover the check upon its presentment.
For this offense, the unit took no action.

3. LEGAL ANALYSIS:

a. The case file is legally sufficient to support the proposed action under AFI 36-3208,
Chapter 5, Section E, paragraph 5.26.3, for unsatisfactory duty performance - failure in on-the-
job training (OJT) and Section H, paragraph 5.49, for minor disciplinary infractions (primary
basis).

b. AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.26, provides that airmen are subject to discharge for
unsatisfactory performance (including failures in on-the-job training) “based on documented
failures to meet Air Force standards.” A1C SPpraitures in her CE exams equate to a failure
to meet Air Force standards. Career Development Courses are required training for all airmen
and passing the CE exam is a prerequisite for completing upgrade training. Airmen are expected
to take the responsibility to perform their assigned duties and complete required training.
Despite her unit’s efforts to assist her through counselings and improvement opportunities,
ACA pied to take the responsibility to dedicate herself to successful completion of her
CDCs and thereby failed to meet Air Force training standards. AC SRP iture to pass a
required training program constitutes unsatisfactory performance and a failure in on-the-job
training and forms a basis for discharge under AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.26.3.

c. Minor disciplinary infractions are violations of nonpunitive regulations or minor offenses
under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and are evidenced by counselings, letters of
reprimand, or nonjudicial punishment. ACME chavior, as outlined in paragraph 2,
constitutes a pattern of minor disciplinary infractions. When an airman engages in such
infractions, discharge under AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.49,
is appropriate.

d. Under AFI 36-3208, paragraph 6.44, when the basis of a discharge recommendation
consists of two or more reasons, the commander should apply the guidance on service
characterization that allows the most latitude. Thus, when a recommendation for discharge is
approved for both unsatisfactory duty performance and minor disciplinary infractions, the criteria
for characterization of discharge for misconduct should be applied. A general discharge is
appropriate because significant negative aspects of AlC 4@(@@MMonduct outweigh positive
aspects of her military record. The range and consistency of infractions demonstrate a disregard
for acceptable Air Force standards. A1CSQQ@@§@Pconduct is not, however, so egregious that it
constitutes a “significant departure” from the conduct expected of airmen, thus warranting an
fib 2002- C262

ff °

under other than honorable conditions discharge. Likewise, AlC4@i@Meservice has not been
sO meritorious that only an honorable discharge is appropriate.

e. The member’s response (see tab 5):

1. Al CREME esponded primarily to the evidence supporting the primary basis for
discharge, minor disciplinary infractions. She did not discuss evidence regarding her CDC
failures. In her response, Al C@@@Miexplains that she was not instructed how to respond to
many of the letters she received. She implies that because she did not know about the services
offered by the ADC, she did not know how to respond to some of the letters. Because
AIC ubmitted a response to a letter of counseling in January 1996, she was aware that

she could respond and has had the opportunity to ask questions about formatting an effective
response.

2. In the eighth paragraph of her response, Al CegaAisputes some of the letters that
support this discharge action:

a. In subparagraph a, she responds to a Letter of Reprimand dated 24 April 1998.
On 25 April 1998, she acknowledged the LOR and did not attach statements. AIC4 ad

the opportunity to respond but chose not to do so at that time.

anes tehinh ELBE mr NE He ET eH ll mb arash

 

ibaa,

b. Subparagraph b supplements her response to a Letter of Reprimand dated
13 January 1998. Her main substantive complaint is that the unit found her reporting late for
duty based on the work of another airman, her supervisor. As you know, rarely does an incident
produce tangible evidence (such as a video of the event); often commanders base their
disciplinary decisions on the reports of an airman’s supervisor. Furthermore, her commander
reviewed her initial response to the Letter of Reprimand and chose not to withdraw the LOR.

AER ER Foran Aa EMR Ae

 

c. In subparagraphs c and e, Al C4Q§MRyesponds to Letters of Counseling dated
8 October 1997 and 20 December 1996, respectively. Although both LOCs noted that submitted
comments would become part of the action, she chose not to respond and raise these issues at
that time.

d. Her responses in subparagraphs d and f reiterate her original responses to the
Letters of Counseling dated 19 December 1996 and 18 January 1996, respectively. Her response
in subparagraph f calls the 18 January 1996 LOC “nit picky.” Note, however, that discharge
packages generally contain all properly administered LOCs and LORs.

Although ACARI sponses to her self-described “adverse letters of harassment” offer her
another chance to tell her side of the story, they also demonstrate her unwillingness to be
accountable for her actions. As such, the weight and credibility of her responses do not ~~~

 

materially affect our recommendation~

3. In addition, because A] Cliibebas not received any Article 15 punishments and has
no criminal history, she feels she deserves an honorable discharge._A mere lack of criminal _

history and Article 15 punishment does not entitle a member to an honorable discharge. Minor

SAA get ay

 

1 YR remember Pt NTP mae
oe @ @ FD2002- 626 2.

disciplinary infractions are just that—they are infractions that do not rise to the level of
criminality or merit Article 15 punishment but that still warrant some disciplinary action.
AIC Iso explains that she intends to pursue a career with the Washington State Patrol
_-and that a general discharge will keep her from doing so. The indirect impact of the type of
discharge on her future employment should not be a factor in determining how wr
served in the Air Force.

f. 62 OSS/CC does not recommend an offer of probation and rehabilitation. We concur.
Al C4@@@MMbas been given several opportunities to correct her behavior, but she continues to fail
to show that she can adopt and consistently demonstrate acceptable standards of behavior. Her
most recent EPR notes her lack of motivation and professionalism and indicates her need for
constant supervision. Ail C&Mi@Phas given us every reason to believe that if she were to remain
in the Air Force, she would continue her misconduct. A1C MME ommander and first

sergeant have counseled her and agree that it would be in the best interests of the Air Force and
Al C@Q@MMKt0 separate her as soon as possible.

4. ERRORS AND IRREGULARITIES:

a. Paragraph 2.b.2 of the Notification Memorandum dated 9 June 1998 indicates that
Al & was verbally counseled for delinquency on her DPP account (atch 3). The first
sergeant’s memorandum, dated 2 March 1998, indicates that the unit accomplished a
Memorandum for Record and not verbal counseling as corrective action. A Memorandum for
Record is not included for this action. However, it appears that the unit mistakenly marked this
box. The body of the letter asked OSS/IN to provide instructions to the member on what she
should do, and the comments under “mitigating circumstances” suggest that the member verbally
responded. Therefore, it appears to be a clerical error. In addition, the comments state “see
attached receipt” and no such receipt is contained in the package. MSe ex who signed the
memorandum from OSS/CCF on 20 March 98, has since PSC’ed to England. Although the unit
took no disciplinary action beyond the alleged verbal counseling, the clerical error and lack of
proof of payment does not materially affect the legal sufficiency of this discharge action.

b. The Letter of Reprimand dated 13 January 1998 (atch 4) does not indicate whether or not
the member submitted statements. Because the member did submit a response, this
administrative error does not affect the legal sufficiency of this discharge action.

c. Acopy of the member’s physical exam must be included in this discharge package prior
to final discharge.

5. OPTIONS:

a. Direct that this action be discontinued and retain A1C ain the United States Air
Force. -

b. Direct that A1C {jjiipbe discharged from the United States Air Force with a general
discharge, with or without probation and rehabilitation.
tee c @ (esceZ 026f-_

c. Direct that Al C@Qiipabe retained for processing under Chapter 6, Section C (Board
Hearing), if you determine she should be separated with an under other than honorable
conditions discharge.

d. Forward this case file to 15 AF/CC if you believe that A1 CQ@jjugshould be separated
from the United States Air Force with an honorable discharge.

6, RECOMMENDATION: Discharge A1C Q§Mpfrom the United States Air Force under the
provisions of AFI 36-3208, Chapter 5, Section E, paragraph 5.26.3, for unsatisfactory duty
performance - failure in on-the-job training (OJT) and Section H, paragraph 5.49, for minor
disciplinary infractions (primary basis) with a general characterization of service without
probation and rehabilitation. We do not believe Al C8@@irepresents a threat to the personnel
and/or property of McChord AFB. Therefore, we do not recommend that you bar her from base.
If you concur with our recommendations, please sign the letter attached in Tab 2.

Staff Judge Advocate.

 

Attachment:
Case File (AIC Shoop) -
. © » Pr Zoo2-O 262

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
62D AIRLIFT WING (AMC)
MCCHORD AIR FORCE BASE, WASHINGTON 98438

I Sue 9¢

MEMORANDUM FOR AIC,

 

FROM: 62 OSS/CC
SUBJECT: Notification Memorandum

1. | am recommending your discharge from the United States Air Force for unsatisfactory duty
performance — failure in on-the-job training (OJT) and minor disciplinary infractions. The
authority for this action is AFPD 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations, and AFI 36-3208,
Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraphs 5.26.3 and 5.49 (primary basis). If my
recommendation is approved, your service will be characterized as honorable or general. I am

recommending that your service be characterized as general. I have informed 62 OG/CC of this
recommendation for discharge.

2. My reasons for this action are:

a. Paragraph 5.26.3 — unsatisfactory duty performance — failure to progress in on-the-job
(OJT) training:

(1) On or about 25 March 1998, you scored a 50 on your 2™ Career Development Course
(CE) exam thereby failing to meet the minimum passing score of 65. For this failure, Extension
Course Institute (ECT) Air University disenrolled you from the Career Development Course, and
your supervisor, unit training monitor, and I personally counseled you. In addition, I initiated
this involuntary discharge action. (atch 1)

(2) On or about 12 November 1997, you scored a 58 on your 1" Career Development
Course (CE) exam thereby failing to meet the minimum passing score of 65. For this failure,
your supervisor, unit training monitor, and I personally counseled you. In addition, we
scheduled you to retake the test. (atch 1)

(3) On or about 23 October 1996, you scored a 52 on your 1* Career Development
Course (CE) exam thereby failing to meet the minimum passing score of 65. For this failure,
Extension Course Institute (ECT) Air University disenrolled you from the Career Development
Course because the time allotted (12 months from date of enrollment) to complete your CDCs
had expired. Therefore, we had your CDC enrollment reactivated. (atch 1)

b. Paragraph 5.49 — minor disciplinary infractions (primary basis):

(1) On or about 18 April 1998, you reported to work out of uniform. For this offense,
you received a Letter of Reprimand dated 24 April 1998. (atch 2)
a @ @ (e7e2- O262.

(2) On or about 13 February 1998, you were 60 days delinquent on your AAFES DPP
account, For this offense, we verbally counseled you. (atch 3)

(3) On or about 9 January 1998, you were late for duty. For this offense, you received a
Letter of Reprimand dated 13 January 1998. (atch 4)

(4) On or about 5 January 1998, you failed to return to work after your 1 hour lunch
break. Specifically, you left for lunch at 0345 hours and did not return until 0630 hours. For this
offense, your supervisor verbally counseled you, as documented in a Memo for Record. (atch 5)

(5) On or about 2 October 1997, you were given the day off to prepare for your Career
Development Course exam (CE). On or about 3 October 1997, you failed to take the CDC test .
For this offense, you received a Letter of Reprimand dated 8 October 1997. (atch 6)

(6) On or about 25 August 1997, you failed to remain at your place of residence while on
quarters. For this offense, you received a Letter of Counseling dated 25 August 1997. (atch 7)

(7) On or about 24 April 1997, you left for lunch 15 minutes early and returned from
lunch 15 minutes late. Specifically, you left for lunch at 0945 hours when your authorized
expanded lunch hour started at 1000 hours and you returned from lunch at 1215 hours when your

lunch hour ended at 1200 hours. For this offense, you received a Letter of Counseling dated 28
April 1997. (atch 8)

(8) On or about 28 January 1997, you disobeyed an order from your supervisor, in that

you failed to return the shop copy of the CDCs to your supervisor after being ordered to do so.
(atch 9)

(9) On or about 13 December 1996, you were derelict in the performance of your duties
by using improper lifting practices, failing to perform your job as briefed to you upon your
initial assignment to the float section, and your lack of initiative when loading the truck. This is
documented in a Letter of Counseling dated 19 December 1996. (atch 10)

(10) On or about 26 November 1996, you left work at 1215 hours to take your child to
Madigan Army Medical Center (MAMC). On or about 27 November 1996, you told your
NCOIC that you had taken your child to MAMC on 26 November 1996, when, in fact, you did
not. For this offense, you received a Letter of Counseling dated 20 December 1996. (atch 11)

(11) On or about 18 January 1996, you wore an unauthorized hair tie. For this offense,
you received a Letter of Counseling dated 18 January 1996. (atch 12)

(12) On or about 11 December 1995, you wore an unauthorized hair tie. For this
offense, you received a Letter of Counseling dated 11 December 1995. (atch 13)
wo r o FP 2O02- O20 2 |

(13) On or about 12 July 1995, you wrote a check to AAFES in the amount of $3.39 and
thereafter failed to maintain sufficient funds to cover the check upon its presentment. For this
offense, we took no action. (atch 14)

3. I have attached copies of the documents to be forwarded to the separation authority in support
of this recommendation. The commander exercising SPCM jurisdiction or a higher authority
will decide whether you are 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 legal counsel. Military legal counsel has been obtained to assist
you. You have an appointment to consult Cape@@Qggaai 984-2240, in building 100, room 3076

on _L PTY E at O£0D hours. 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 |} SUVE 9{_ 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 to include an HIV test. You must report
to Physical Exams in building 173 on | Je We4t at__ (997 ©0 _ hours with your medical
records. Fast (drink water only) for 12 hours prior, no alcohol 72 hours prior, no tobacco
products 6 hours prior to examination, and you must be in uniform for the examination.

8. You have been scheduled for a mandatory Transition Pre-separation Counseling appointment
at the Family Support Center, bldg 552, on LOWE 7% at _{ 200 hours.

9. 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 at your Commander’s Support Staff.

10. The discharge authority will make the finding and recommendations require
U.S.C 2005(g).

  
   

ae Lt Col, USAF
Commander

Attachments: listed on next page