SS
“eager”
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) ~~ | GRADE AFSN/SSAN
Eee. AB
TYPE :
BCD PERSONAL APPEARANCE X RECORD REVIEW
COUNSEL NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
YES NO
x
VOTE OF THE BOARD
MEMBERS SITTING HON GEN DOTHC OTHER DENY
a, x
xX
xX
2s x
a X
ISSUES ] INDEX NUMBER EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE. BOARD. .
A91.05 A91.00 1 | ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
3, | APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
[3 | LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
HEARING DATE CASE NUMBER 4 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
03-01-24 FD2002-0372 COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING
APPLICANT’S ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE,
REMARKS
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.
SIGNATURE OF BOARD PRESIDENT
: 03-01-24
sarnupx
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3°” 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 | gp9909-0372
GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and to change the reason and
authority for her discharge.
The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board but declined to
exercise this nght.
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 the applicant submitted no matters in clemency, and the evidence of record does not
provide a sufficient basis in clemency for a change of discharge.
Issue. The applicant did not receive an administrative discharge. She received a Bad Conduct Discharge, a
punitive discharge, as part of her sentence resulting from a Special Court Martial conviction. Under the
provisions of Title 10, U.S.C., Section 1553, the only basis for change of a Bad Conduct Discharge, is
clemency. The applicant submitted no evidence to warrant clemency and none was evident in the record.
If the applicant can provide documented information regarding matters of clemency, she should consider
exercising her right to a personal appearance hearing. Should she choose to exercise that right, she should
be prepared to provide the Board with evidence of any exemplary post-service accomplishments and
contributions to the community.
CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the applicant’s punitive discharge by
Special Court Martial was appropriate under the facts and circumstances of this case and there is
insufficient basis as an act of clemency for change of discharge.
Attachment:
Examiner's Brief
FD2002-0372
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
ANDREWS AFB, MD
MISSING DOCUMENTS
ee” (Former AB) (HGH A1C)
1. MATTER UNDER REVIEW: Appl rec’d a BCD Disch fr USAF 27 Feb 00 UP Special
Court Martial Order No. 2 (Conviction by Court Martial). Appeals for Honorable
Disch.
2. BACKGROUND:
a. DOB: 26 May 76. Enlmt Age: 19 8/12. Disch Age: 23 9/12. Educ: HS DIPL.
AFOT: N/A. A-80, E-42, G-53, M-10. PAFSC: 3A011 - Information Management
Helper. DAS; Unknown.
b. Prior Sv: (1) AFRes 20 Feb 96 - 12 Mar 96 (23 Days) (Inactive).
3. SERVICE UNDER REVIEW:
a. Enld as AB 13 Mar 96 for 4 yrs. Svd: 3 Yrs 11 Mos 15 Das, of which AMS
is 3 Yrs 10 Mos 22 Das (Ex: 23 Das lost time).
b. Grade Status: AB - 5 Aug 97 (SPCM Order No 2, 19 Mar 98)
Alc - 13 Jul 97
AMN - 13 Sep 96
c. Time Lost: 2 Feb 98 - 24 Feb 98 (23 Days)
d. Art 15’s: Unknown.
e. Additional: Unknown.
f. CM: Special Court Martial Order No. 2, 19 March 1998
CHARGE 1: Article 109. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Not Guilty.
Specification: Did, at or near Minot Air Force Base, North
Dakota, on or about 18 Aug 97, willfully and wrongfully destroy by
pouring a clear sticky substance on the back of a television, of
a value of about $269.00, the property of another airman.
CHARGE 11: Article 121. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Not Guilty.
Specification 1. Did, at or near Minor Air Force Base, North
Dakota, between on or about 1 Jun 97 to 18 Aug 97, steal a key
chain with several keys attached, of a value of less than $100.00,
the property of another airman.
FD2002-0372
Specification 2. Did, at or near Minot Air Force Base, North
Dakota, on or about 18 Aug 97, steal a prescription bottle of
Motrin tablets and a tan Pelle Pelle jacket, of a value of less
than $100.00, the property of another airman.
CHARGE III. Article 128. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty.
Specification 1. Did, at or near Minot Air Force Base, North
Dakota, on divers occasions, on or about 9 Aug 97, unlawfuly
strike another airman on her face with a closed fist.
Specification 2. Did, at or near Minor Air Force Base, North
Dakota, on or about 9 Aug 97, unlawfully bite another airman on
his shoulder. Sentence adjudged on 2 Feb 98: Bad conduct
discharge, 30 days confinement, reduction to AB, forfeiture of
$500.00 pay per month for 3 months, and restriction to Minot Air
Force Base for 60 days.
g. Record of SV: 13 Mar 96 - 12 Nov 97 Minot AFB 2 (Initial) REF
(Discharged from Minot AFB)
h. Awards & Decs: AFTR.
i. Stmt of Sv: TMS: (3) Yrs (11) Mos (15) Das
TAMS: (3) Yrs (10) Mos (22) Das
4. BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW: Appin (DD Fm 293) dtd 11 Aug 02.
(Change Discharge to Honorable)
NO ISSUES SUBMITTED
ATCH
None
4 Dec 02/cr
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00342
CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the applicant’s punitive discharge by Special Court Martial was appropriate under the facts and circumstances of this case and there is insufficient basis as an act of clemency for change of discharge. Finding: Not Guilty, but Guilty of Violation of Article 130. 4 at Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, on or about 17 Specification: Did, June 1989, in the nighttime.
AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2006-00277
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. Finding: G. Specification: In that, A1C ; .-.-..-..-..-..-..-..- - - - - - - - , Security Forces Squadron, Minot AFB, ND, did at or near Minot , AFB, ND, on or about: 3 Jun 99, with intent to deceive make to Captm .--------------- '..-..-.' Fidding: G. : United States Air Force, 5Ih CHARGE II: ARTICLE...
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2002-0389
CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD02-0389 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. 4, 29 Sep 99) c. Time Lost: 12 Aug 99 - 1 Oct 99 (1 Month 20 Days) d. Art 15’s: (1) 30 Dec 98, Osan AB, Korea - Article 92. [am recommending your discharge from the United States Air Force based upon Commission of Serious Offenses.
AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2002-0028
The applicant received a Bad Conduct Discharge, a punitive discharge, as part of his sentence resulting from a Special Court-Martial conviction. Attachment: Examiner's Brief DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ANDREWS AFB, MD FD2002-0028 (Former AB) (HGH Unknown) 1. Plea: G. Finding: G. Specification: Did, at or near Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, from on or about 20 y, of a value of about September 1997 to on or about 10 October 19 $2,600.00, the property of...
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00384
SF ay AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) AFSN/SSAN | PERSONAL APPEARANCE xX RECORD REVIEW NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL MEMBER SITTING HON _ a Xx Ey x _EEEEy x as Xx Xx ISSUES INDEX NUMBER A93.01 A67.90 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE LETTER OF NOTIFICATION BQN [- BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL’S RELEASE TO THE BOARD HEARING DATE 21 Nov 2003 CASE...
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2002-0440
REMARKS Case heard at Washington, D.C. age of Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to ajfersonal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR. en, CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD02-0440 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. Attachment: Examiner's Brief FD2002-0440 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ANDREWS AFB, MD MISSING MEDICAL...
AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2006-00468
iAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD 1 GRADE 1 AIC 1 AFSNISSAN .--------------. AF FM 1058, Unfavorable Information File Action, 3 Feb 99 5. AF FM 1 168, Statement of A1 C ;:::i, : 20 Jul99 17.
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2002-0416
CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD02-0416 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. Attachment: Examiner's Brief FD2002-0416 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ANDREWS AFB, MD ap (Former SRA) (HGH SSGT) 1. Therefore, the facts documented in that paragraph 2 of this legal _ review show that@iiip engaged in a pattern of misconduct that is prejudicial to good order and discipline.
AF | DRB | CY2004 | FD2004-00051
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. Svd: 2 Yrs 2 Mo 7 Das, of which AMS is 2 yrs 0 months 10 days (excludes 1 month 27 days lost time). Specification 1: Did, at or near Anderson AFB, Guam, on or about 4 Apr 98, unlawfully strike -in his hand.
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2002-0546
His misconduct included two instances of failure to obey lawful orders, two incidents of dereliction of duty, at least two instances of failure to maintain his uniforms and personal hygiene standards, failure to go, failing to follow government vehicle operating instructions resulting in an accident, violating the base visitor sponsorship policy, providing alcoholic beverages to another airman who was under the legal drinking age, and soliciting that airman to make a false statement. ...