I 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARJNG RECORD 

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST hllDDLE INI'TIN,) 

GRADE 

AFSNISSAN 

PERSONAL APPEARANCE 

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORCANI7ATION 

X  RECORD REVIEW 
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL 

MEMBERS SI'T'I'ING 

VOTE OF TAG BOARD 

HON 

CFN 

UOI HC 

OTHER 

GEN 
-C~UNSEL 

YFS 

I  N O  

X 

1 

DENY 

X 

X 

X 
X 

X 

L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '  

ISSllES 
A94.53, A92.37 

INDEX NUhIBER 
A67.50 

I 

HEARING DATE 
03-04-15 

CASE NUMBER 
FD2002-0376 

1 
2 
3 
4 

EXHIBITS SU8MlTTED TO THE BOARD 

ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD 

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE 

LETTER OF NOTlFlCATlON 
BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE 
COUNSEL'S  RELEASE TO THE BOARD 
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMIITED AT  TIME OF 
PERSONAL APPEARANCE 

I 

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING 

APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND IHE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RAIIONAL AKE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHFD AIR FORCE DlSCHARGt REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE, 

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. 

TO: 

/ / 

SAFIMIBR 
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781504742 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

INDORSEMENT 

I  FROM: 

DATE:  03-04-15 

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL 
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3"  FLOOR 
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002 

AFIIQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 

(EF-V2) 

Previous edition will be used. 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE 

CASE NUMHER 

FD2002-0376 

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals f'or upgrade of discharge to honorablc. 

The  applicant  was  offered  a  personal  appearance  before  the  Discharge  Revicw  Board  but  declined  to 
exercise this right. 

'Mle  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 issues contesting the equity or propriety  of the discharge, and 
after a thorough review of the record, the Board was unable to identify any. 

lssucs.  Applicant  was  discharged  for  a  pattern  of  misconduct.  She  had  two  Records  of  Individual 
Counseling, a  Letter  of  Counseling, a  Letter of Reprimand,  and  two  Articles  15.  There were  also  three 
Mcmos  for Record  documenting misconduct.  Of three  Enlisted  Performance  Reports,  one was rated  an 
overall "2"  and another was a referral  " 1 ." Member's misconduct included three instances of failure to go, 
causing a fire hazard in the dorm, wearing the wrong uniform to work, unauthorized use of another airman's 
personal  telephone and failing to pay the resulting bill, leaving her duty section for an excessive period  of 
time  and  failing to  respond  to  a page,  and  sleeping  on  duty.  These  offenses  occurred  over  a  24-month 
period  and  although member was counseled repeatedly and  given numerous opportunities to  improve and 
change her negative behavior, she was unable or unwilling to do so.  At the time of the discharge, applicant 
waived her right to subinit statements in her own behalf.  The Board found applicant's  repeated misconduct 
was a sibmificant departure from the standards expected of all airmen, therefore, no inequity or impropriety 
was found in his discharge in the course of the rccords 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 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR  FORCE 

AIR  FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 

ANDREWS AFB, MD 

(Former AlC)  (HGH SRA) 

1.  MATTER UNDER REVIEW:  Appl rec'd a GEN Disch fr USAF 3 Jun 92 UP AFR 39-10, 
para 5-47b  (Pattern of Misconduct).  Appeals for Honorable Discharge. 

2.  BACKGROUND: 

a. DOB: 25 Jan 68.  Enlmt Age: 20 7/12.  Disch Age: 24 4/12. Educ: HS DIPL. 

AFQT: N/A.  A-68,  E-53,  G-53,  M-40. PAFSC: 90350 -  Radiological Specialist. 
DAS: 10 Dec 8 9 .  

b.  Prior Sv: None. 

3.  SERVICE UNDER  REVIEW: 

a.  Enlisted as AB 7 Sep 88 for 4 yrs. Svd: 3 Yrs 8 Mo 28 Das, all AMS. 

b.  Grade Status:  A1C -  11 May 92 (Article 15, 11 May 92) 

SRA  -  28 Jan 92 
AlC -  07 Jan 90 
AMN -  ( E P R   Indicates): 7 Sep 88-6 May 90 

c.  Time Lost:  None. 

d.  Art  15's:  (1) 11 May 92, Nellis AFB, NV  -  Article 92.  Preliminary 

investigation has disclosed that you, who knew of your 
duties, on or about 26 Apr 92, were derelict in the 
performance of those duties in that you negligently 
failed to remain awake while performing duties as a 
Radiology Technician as it was your duty to do. 
Reduction to AlC, suspended forfeiture of $250.00 pay 
per month for 2 months.  (No appeal)  (No mitigation) 

(2) 26 Jul 91, Nellis AFB, NV  -  Article 92.  Preliminary 

investigation has disclosed that you, who knew or should 
have known of your duties, on or about 12 Jul 91, were 
derelict in the performance of those duties in that you 
left your primary duty area for an excessive period of 
time, you willfully failed to respond to a beeper page 
when you were needed to provide patient service, and you 
willfully avoided performing your duties.  Suspended 
reduction to Airman, and forfeiture of $100.00 pay per 
month for two months.  (No appeal)  (No mitigation) 

e.  Additional: RIC, 12 MAR 91 -  Dereliction of duty. 

RIC, 05 FEB 91 -  Unauthorized use of personal telephone, 

failing to pay phone bill, and disorderly 

behavior. 

MFR, 07 SEP 90 -  Wearing the wrong uniform for duty. 
LOC, 09 AUG 90 -  Late for duty. 
MFR, 08 AUG 90  -  Late for duty. 
LOR, 07 JUN 90 -  Causing a Eire hazard. 
MFR, 3/4 MAY 90 -  Late for duty. 

f.  CM:  None. 

g.  Record of SV: 7 Sep 88 -  6 May 90  Nellis AFB  4  (Initial) 

7 May 90 -  6 May 91  Nellis AFB  2  (Annual) 
7 M a y   91 -  6 May 92  Nellis AFB  1  (AnnualIREF 

(Discharged from Nellis AFB) 

h.  Awards &  Decs:  AFTR, AFGCM, AFOUA, NDSM. 

i.  Stmt of Sv:  TMS:  ( 3 )  Yrs  ( 8 )   Mos  ( 2 8 )   Das 
TAMS: (3) Yrs  ( 8 )   Mos  (28) Das 

4 .   BASIS ADVANCED  FOR REVIEW:  Appln  (DD Fm 293) dtd 5 Aug 02. 

(Change Discharge to Honorable) 

NO ISSUES SUBMITTED. 

ATCH 
1. Request for Records. 
2. DD Form 214. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR  FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS USAF FIGHTER WEAPONS CENTER (TAC) 

NELLIS AIR FORCE 0ASE  NV 89191 -5000 

REPLY TO 
AlTN OF: 

JA (Capt Murdock/25554) 

29 May 92 

SUBJECT:  Lega 1 
5-47b, 

roceedings Under AFR  39-10, Para 

1.  Backsraund:  On 26 May  1992, the Squadron S 
Medical Group, recommended that the respondent, 
discharged under AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-47b for 
with a general discharge without probation and rehabil itation (P&R).  The 
case is- being processed by  notification procedure.  As the special 
court-martial convening authority, you have  t h e   following a1 ternatives: 

h 
be 
uct 

a.  Direct that the respondent be retained; or, 

b.  Recommend to FWC/CC  that the respondent receive an honorable 

discharge w i t h   or without P&R;  or, 

c.  Direct that the respondent be discharged with a general discharge 

with or without P&R;  or, 

d.  Direct reinitiation of  this case under Section C, Board Hearing or 

Waiver. 

2. 

Facts: 

a.  For the  Government:  A preponderance of the evidence establ ishes 

that the following incidents occurred during the respondent's current 
en1 istment: 

Date -  Incident 
26 Apr 92 

Failure to Remain Awake 
While Performing Duties 

Action 

Article 15 

12 Jul 91 

11 Mar 91 

Derelict  in the Perfor- 
mance of Duties 

Article 15 

Derelict in the Perfor- 
mance of Duties 

Record of Individual 
Counse 1 i ng 

1 Feb  91 

Using Roommates Phone 
Without Permission, 
Failure to Pay Phone Bill 
&  Disorderly Behavior 

Record o f   Individual 
Counsel ing 

7 Sep 90 

Reporting for Duty Out of  Memo for Record 
Uniform 

9 Aug 90 

Late for Duty 

Letter of Counseling 

8 Aug 90 

Late for Duty 

Me1110 for Record 

6 Jun 90 

Caused a Fire Hazard 

Letter of Reprimand 

3 May 90 & 
4 May 90 

Late for Duty 

Memo for Record 

This information may be  considered to determine whether the respondent is 
subject to discharge, whether she should be discharged, and  if discharged, 
the character o f   discharge. 

b.  For the Respondent:  The respondent is a 24 year old Airman 

First Class with over three years and eight months of active military 
service.  Her overall performance reports are 4, 2 and  1.  She is entitled 
to wear the AF Good Conduct Medal, AF Outstanding Unit Award, AF Training 
Ribbon and the National Defense Service Medal.  Her test scores are: 
Admin-68, Elec-53, Gen-53, Mech-40.  The respondent decl ined to submit 
matters for your consideration. 

3.  Errors and Irreqularities:  There are no errors or irregularities 
prejudicial to the substantive rights o f   the respondent.  This legal review 
is contingent upon the respondent being given a physical exam and being 
found qualified for world-wide duty. 

4.  Conclusions: 

a.  The file has been prepared in substantial compliance with AFR  39-10 

and  is legally sufficient. 

b.  A  member is subject to discharge when she establishes a pattern of 
misconduct in the current enlistment that i s  prejudicial to good order and 
disci pl ine.  The respondent's conduct meets the definition of conduct 
prejudicial to good order and discipline which includes conduct of a nature 
that tends to disrupt order, discipline, or ~iiorale within the military 
community and causes dissent, disruption, and degradation of mission 
effectiveness. 

f 

c.  Discharges for misconduct should usually be characterized as under 

other than honorable conditions (UOTHC). 
If the misconduct does not 
warrant that characterization, the separation may be characterized as 
general.  The separation may be characterized as honorable only  if the 
member's record has been so meritorious that any other characterization 
would be clearly inappropriate.  The misconduct in this case  does not 
warrant a UOTHC, because it i s  not a significant enough departure from the 
conduct expected of airmen.  The  respondent Is record is not meritorious 
enough to warrant an  honorable discharge.  In t h i s   case, a general 
discharge is appropriate because negative aspects of the respondent's 
conduct outweigh positive aspects af  the respondent1 s military record. 

d.  The commander has  not recommended P&R.  The  commander has 

determined that the member i s  unable to meet Air Force standards despite 
counseling and rehabi 1 itation efforts. 

5.  Recommendat ions;  I recommend that you approve t h e   respondent I s 
discharge from the United States Air Force w i t h   a general discharge, under 
honorable conditions, without P&R. 

staff ~ u d g e  Advocate 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR  FORCE 

SS4TH  M E D I C A L   GROUP  (TAC) 

N E L L I S   A I R   F O R C E   BASE  N V   8 9 1 9 1 - 5 3 0 0  

REPLY TO 
ATTN OF: 

SUBJECT: 

TO: 

CCQ 

Notification Letter 

26 May 92 

1.  I am recommending your discharge from the United States Air Force for a 
pattern of misconduct.  The authority for this action is AFR 39-10, 
paragraph 5-47b.  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 26 Apr 92, you were derelict in the performance of your 

duties in that you negligently failed to remain awake while performing 
duties as a Radiology Technician, as evidenced by an Article 15 dated 11 
May 92; 

b. 

On or about 12 Jul  91, you were derelict i n  the performance of your 

duties in that you left your primary duty area for an excessive period of 
time, you willfully failed to respond to a beeper page when you were needed 
to provide patient service, and you willfully avoided perforniing your 
duties, as evidenced by an Article 15 dated 26 Jul 92; 

c.  On or about 11 Mar 91, you were derelict in the performance of your 

duties in that you left your primary duty area for an excessive period of 
time, as  evidenced by a Record of Individual Counseling dated 12 Mar 91; 

d.  On or about 1 Feb 91, you were counseled for using your roommates 
telephone without her consent, not paying your roommate for a phone bill, 
and disorderly behavior, as evidenced by a Record of individual Counseling 
dated 5 Feb 91: 

e.  On or about 7 Sep 90, you reported for duty in the wrong uniform as 

evidenced by a Memo for the Record dated 7 Sep 90; 

f .   On or about 9 Aug 90, you were late for duty as evidenced by a 

Letter of Counseling dated 9 Aug 90; 

g .   On or about 8 Aug  90, you were late for duty as evidenced by a  Memo 

for the Record dated 8 Aug 90; 

h.  On or about 6 Jun 90, you had a curling iron plugged into an outlet 
and unattended causing a fire hazard as evidenced by a Letter of Reprimand 
dated 7 Jun 90; and 

.# ' 

i. On  or about 3 May 90 and on or about 4 May 90, you were late for 

duty as evidenced by a Memo for the Record dated 314 May 90. 

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 i n  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. 

3.  You have the right to consult legal counsel.  Military legal counsel 
has been obtained to assist you.  I have made an appointment for you to 
consult the Area Defense Counsel at Bldg 43 on Tuesday 26 May 92 at 1000 
hours.  You may consult civilian counsel at your own expense. 

4.  You have the right to submit statements in your own behalf.  Any 
statements you want the separation authority to consider must reach me by 
29 May  92 at ~q/