AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) " GRADE | AFSN/SSAN
; AIC
‘; Mansy:
X PERSONAL APPEARANCE RECORD REVIEW
COUNSEL NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION — ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL ™
YES NO
X
- ~ VOID OF THE BOARD “oT
MEMBERS SITTING HON GEN UOTHC | OTHER DENY
Xx
»4
4
xX
ee x
ISSUES INDEX NUMBER EXHIBITS SUBMITTED 1O:THE BOARD
A49.00 A92.22, 93.32, 94,12 1 | ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
3 | APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 | LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
HEARING DATE CASE NUMBER 4 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
1 APR 03 . FD2002-0377 COUNSEL’S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERA HEARING

 

APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ART DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONAY

 

 

REMARKS

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board.

 

 

 

SIGNATURE OF BOARD PRESIDENT

 

    

 

 

 

 

INDORSEMENT DB ATE: APR 03
| To. — FROM: ~ —
SAF/MIBR SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEMICOUNCIL
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3° FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

 

 

 

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 ~ (EF-V2) Previous edition will lg used.
CASE NUMBER

  
 

 

   
 
 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE | pp9097-00 977

  
  
  

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for a change to the character of discharge from general to ho

   
   
     

   

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), at Andrews Air Hibrce
Base, Maryland, on April 1, 2003.

  

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit 5: Applicant’s issues; Ex
College Transcript (9 pgs); Exhibit 7: Character Letter; Exhibit 8: E-mails of Appreciation (55 pg

  
    

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

  
 

FINDINGS: The requested relief is granted.

 
    
 

ISSUE: The applicant contends her discharge was inequitable because she was not given an appr
Opportunity to pass her CDC exams and because it was an unfair characterization of her service.

applicant had a letter of counseling for financial irresponsibility connected to nearly $1000 of bad
nonjudicial punishment for theft of approximately $112 of merchandise from AAFES; a letter of
of an overdue cell phone bill in the amount of $614; a record of individual counseling for having
out of compliance with regulations; and a letter of admonition for making unauthorized phone cal
government authorization code. She also failed her CDC course first in November and then in De
1998. When she was discharged, the applicant was within months of completing her first enlistme
applicant acknowledged her misconduct and accepted responsibility for her actions. She presente
credible manner and was sincere in the presentation of her case. In addition, her post service cond
evidence by the exhibit she submitted at the hearing, has been exemplary.

 
   
    
 

   
 
 
 

   
     
     
 

Although the applicant did demonstrate poor behavior and did not maintain very good duty perfo
the DRB determined that under the circumstances, the applicant’s discharge characterization was
inequitable. The most serious incident, the theft from AAFES, could not be condoned and was nq
by the DRB. The DRB observed, however, that discharge action was not taken after that incident
it taken until a year after the last incident of misconduct. The unmistakable import of this was tha
the applicant’s failure to pass her CDC course, she would not have been discharged for the miscos
Since the misconduct still could appropriately be used to characterize her service, it was necessar
evaluate the circumstances surrounding her behavior. The applicant was a first term airmen, sent
after never having spent any appreciable amount of time outside her home in a small town in Alak
Moreover, the misconduct stemmed more from naiveté, youth, and inexperience than anything els
problem was compounded by the unit’s apparent failure to provide the applicant with any financia
counseling or any other assistance to help her bring her finances under control. With regard to the
failure, the DRB was disturbed by the unit’s failure to provide required counseling and assistance
airmen who have trouble with their upgrade training. The absence of action by the unit and her supervisory
chain was obvious. In addition, there was evidence the applicant was not permitted to perform hegj duties on
a regular basis as a result of the paternalistic action of male civilian contractors and some male m@mbers of
the military who routinely refused to let her do the work for which she was trained. In this regardjfit
appeared the unit failed to follow procedural requirements and that this failure impacted the equity] of her
separation. It also appeared to the DRB that under these circumstances, it would have been unfaig{for the
applicant to bear the burden of a general characterization for the rest of her life when she could have simply
left the service honorably in a few months after being denied reenlistment.
CONCLUSIONS: After a through and complete consideration of the information submitted by thi
applicant, the applicant’s personal testimony, and information contained in the record, the DRB co

that the discharge was not consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the disc
regulation.

    
     
      
  

The Board further concludes that given the nature of the situation, the overall quality of applicant’ JJ service

is more accurately reflected by an Honorable characterization.

  
   

Attachment:
Examiner's Brief
FD4902-0377
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
ANDREWS AFB, MD

lr (Former A1C) (HGH A1C)

1. MATTER UNDER REVIEW: Appl rec'd a GEN Disch fr USAF 9 JUN 99 UP AFI§36-3208,
para 5.26.3 (Unsatisfactory Performance). Appeals for Honorable Discharge.

2. BACKGROUND:

a. DOB: 1 Aug 77. Enlmt Age: 17 10/12. Disch Age: 21 10/12. Educ: HS DIPL.
AFQT: N/A. A-56, E-51, G-62, M-26. PAFSC: 2E633 ~- Telephone Systems
Apprentice. DAS: 9 Jul 96.

b. Prior Sv: (1) AFRes 21 Jun 95 - 6 Dec 95 (5 months 15 days) (In@ctive).

3. SERVICE UNDER REVIEW:

a. Enlisted as AB 7 Dec 95 for 4 yrs. Svd: 3 Yrs 6 Mo 3 Das, all 4MS.

b. Grade Status: A1C - 6 Aug 98
AMN - 7 Jun 96

c. Time Lost: None.

d. Art 15’s: (1) 3 Aug 97, Kadena AB, Japan - Article 121. You ffiid, on
or about 7 Mar 97, steal makeup and lingerie, dE a
value of about $111.70, the property of ------ -
Suspended reduction to AB, and 45 days extra duly.

(No appeal) (No mitigation)

e. Additional: EOC, 29 DEC 98 - CDC Course failure.

Eoc, 30 NOV 98 - CDC Course failure.

‘LOA, 23 APR 98 - Making and/or allowing unauthorizq@
telephone calls using a compromis@}
telephone authorization code,

RIC, 06 MAR 98 - Violation of AFI 36-2903, Table 1#@ line
5, hair out of standards.

LOR, 05 MAR 98 - Financial irresponsibility.

LOC, 06 JAN 97 - Financial irresponsibility.

£. CM: None.

gq. Record of SV: 07 Dec 95 - 06 Aug 97 Kadena AB 2 (Initial) REE
07 Aug 97 - 06 Aug 98 Kadena AB 3. (Annual)
07 Aug 98 - 01 Mar 99 Kadena AB 1 (Cmdr Dir) REF

(Discharged from Kadena AB)
FUR002-0377

h. Awards & Decs: AFOUA, AFTR, AFOSLTR.

i. Stmt of Sv: TMS: (3) Yrs (11) Mos (20) Das
TAMS: (3) Yrs (6) Mos (3) Das

4. BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW: Appin (DD Fm 293) dtd 30 Aug 02.
(Change Discharge to Honorable)

Issue 1: My name is ------- . I was separated from the United Stat@s Air
Force on 09 June 99 for failure to pass my CDC exam. I was given a Gengral
Discharge under Honorable Conditions. I am asking to have the General Jjischarge
upgraded to an Honorable Discharge. I am asking for this because now tIlt I am
older I realize the importance of being educated and I want to be the b@st that
I can be. I don't believe that I can be the best until I have my dischdrge
upgraded. An honorable discharge will help me in my future endeavors. elieve
me when I say that I am now taking my education seriously. Receiving aJGeneral
Discharge has absolutely made an impact on my life. I am 25 years old dhd have
my entire life ahead of me. I ask that you give me a second chance andfhelp me
make my future a brighter one. Thank you for your consideration.

ATCH
1. Applicant's Issue.

2. College Transcript.

3. Three Character References.
h

DEPA..TMENT OF THE AIR FORCE |
PACIFIC AIR FORCES

 

18 May 99
MEMORANDUM FOR 18 WG/CC

FROM: 18 WG/JA

SUBJECT: Legal Review - Administrative Discharge - i,

18 CS (PACAP), Kadena AB, Japan

 
  

1. BAST [18 CS/CC, initiated this administrative discharge action agfinst
“for Unsatisfactory Performance - Failure to Progress in On-the-Job Training. #The

authority for this action is AFPD 36-32, AF] 36-3208, paragraph.5.26.3 and AFI 36-2201, Attachm@it 9.
The initiating commander has recommended an under honorable conditions (general) discharge wifhout
probation and rehabilitation. .

2, GOVERNMENT'S EVIDENCE:

a: On or about 16 Nov 03, ion received notification that she failed her Career Developfhent
Course (CDC) examination with a score of 54; minimum passing score is 65. As a result, an intergiew
was conducted between her, her supervisor, and her training monitor to address her strengths, judy
habits, and preparation for the CDC exam (Tab I-1).

b. On or about 21 Dec pM failed her CDC examination for the second time with a scale of
44; minimum passing score is 65. Asa result, 18 CS/CC initiated this discharge action (Tab 1-2).

3. RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE:

a. The respondent, a 21-year old airman, originally enlisted 7 Dec 95. Her AQE scores are AB56,
E-51, G-62, and M-26. This airman has received three (3) evaluation reports. Her EPR, which cljsed
out on 1 Mar 99, rated her an overall 1. The airman is entitled to wear the medals, awards, and ribjfons
outlined in the commander's recommendation.

b. The respondent consulted military defense counsel and has submitted. a statement on her own behalf
(Tab 3).

4. ERRORS OR IRREGULARITIES: None noted.

5. DISCUSSION:

a. AFI 36-2201, Attachment 9, authorizes a commander, pursuant to AFI 36-3208, to recommend the
involuntary separation of an airman who twice fails his or her Career Development Course (QDC)
examination. A second unsatisfactory performance on the CDC examination constitutes a failug® to
progress in on-the-job training (OJT), AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.26.4, is the administrative basil for
involuntarily separating an airman who fails to progress in OJT. AIC! _____itwice received unsatisfagfory
scores on her CDC examinations. These two unsatisfactory performances on her CDC examinagjons
therefore constitute a failure to progress in OJT. Because AIC: | failed to progress. in OJT§her
i
commander justifiably recommended her involuntary separation from the United States Air Face
pursuant to AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.26.4.

b. AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.28.2, indicates that an airman who is involuntarily separated for failing
to progress in OJT may have his or her service characterized as either honorable or under honorfble
conditions (general). According to AFI 36-3208, paragraph 1.18.2, a general service characterizatiata is
appropriate when significant negative aspects of an airman’s conduct outweigh the positive aspects ofthe
airman’s military record. In her written response (Tab 3), ‘MB ep o00s against characterizingmher
service as general based on the consequences of her receiving such a service characterization (i.e., ddgial
of benefits under the Montgomery G.I. program) and based on her belief that her conduct has geneglly

met Air Force standards (i.e., her service was honorable), CRED ac gunent is not persuasive. [he
decision how to characterize an airman’s service is not based on the consequences attending a particgilar

service characterization. Instead, the only relevant inquiry is whether an airman’s conduct during hi or
her current enlistment merits a particular service characterization. <@§jPMPassertion that she frill
lose Montgomery G.I. benefits if she receives a general discharge is therefore immaterial to the issu at

hand -- what service characterization does@§§MMMMedeserve?

c. Although the event triggering this discharge action wasq_ffMiiMMMiesecond CDC examinalfon
failure, her behavior during her entire enlistment is relevant to assessing her service characterizatgpn.

During her current enlistment A@QMMMMEBMconduct has not generally met Air“Porce standards. Sheffhas

engaged in several instances of significant misconduct. Specifically (RBM has written sevffral
worthless checks that total: nearly $1000, she has shoplifted retail items valued at $111.70, she has fagled

to pay a just debt valued at $613.96, she has failed to adhere to military appearance standards, andighe
conspired with others to make unauthorized phone calls by using a compromised telephone authorizaffon

code. By comparison@@iMMi} has no obvious positive aspects in her military record. Her EPR ratihgs
have been a mediocre 3, a weak 2, and most recently a 1, which is the lowest possible rating an airghan
can receive as an index of his or her performance. The manifest and significant negative aspects of

MMM conduct therefore necessarily outweigh the absence of any obvious positive aspects of [her

military record. Characterization of ii. service as under honorable conditions (general is
therefore appropriate. ,

d. I concur with 18 CS/CC that probation and rehabilitation is not appropriate for this airman. [he

squadron gavegi@igiiitiit, ample opportunity for rehabilitation. <@@MBM, was provided assistance Ind
study sessions to prepare her for her CDC examinations and yet she failed her examination on fjwo

occasions. There is no reason to believe that further rehabilitative efforts would be successful.

e. I also concur with 18 CS/CC’s recommendation that @QQ4—ipremain on Okinawa uponfher
separation from the United States Air Force. is married to a member of the IBth

Communications Squadron. I{@ggRQQRMRM were separated and returned to CONUS, then she cqhid
nonetheless return to Okinawa as a military dependent, assuming she receives command sponsorship.

6. OPTIONS: As special court-martial convening authority, you may: ,
a. Retail if you consider discharge unwarranted;
b. Direct a general discharge with or without probation and rehabilitation; or

c. Recommend that 5 AF/CC direct an honorable discharge with or without probation [jnd
rehabilitation.
7. RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that you direct a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation by signing the
attached memorandum.

 

Attachment:
Case File

Ist Ind, 18 WG/JA

MEMORANDUM FOR 18 WG/CC

   

I concur/nereesexr with this recommendation.

 

This legal opinion is a privileged document and is provided for command use only. It should ng be
released to the public in general or to the subject of this review in particular. ,
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
PACIFIC AIR FORCES

 

0 6 MAY 1999

MEMORANDUM FOR -gqueasinaiinaanananape ian >,

FROM: 18 CS/CC
SUBJECT: Notification Memorandum

1. JI am recommending your discharge from the United States Air Force for Unsatisfaltory
Performance-Failure to Progress in On-the-Job Training. The authority for my recommendfftion
is AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.26.3 and AFI 36-2201, Attachment 9. I my
recommendation is approved, your service could be characterized as honorable or general. Jpon
review of your total record, I am recommending that your service be characterized as genera

2. My specific reasons for recommending discharge are:

a. On or about 16 Nov 98, you received notification that you failed your Career Developfhent
Course (CDC) examination with a score of 54; minimum passing score is 65. As a resuf an
interview was conducted between you, your supervisor and your training monitor to addressffour
strengths, study habits, and preparation for the CDC exam (Tab 1-1).

b. On or about 21 Dec 98, you failed your CDC examination for the second time with a gfore
of 44; minimum passing score is 65. As a result, this discharge was initiated (Tab 1-2).

Copies of the documents to be forwarded to the separation authority in support off[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 yofj are
discharged, how your service will be characterized. If you are discharged, you will be ineliffible -
for reenlistment in the Air Force.

3. You have the right to consult counsel. Military legal counsel has been obtained to assistffou.
I have made an appointment for you to consult at the [Area

Defense Counsel at Building 1460 on _|0D May Fat ~--() 430 hours. You may coffsult
civilian counsel at your own expense.

4. You have the right to submit statements in your own behalf. Any statements you wang the
separation authority to consider must reach me by | CAN funless you request and recei¥— an
extension for good cause shown. I will send them to the separation authority.
5. If you fail to consult counsel or to submit statements in your own behalf, your failurefivill
constitute a waiver of your right to do so.

6. You have already been scheduled for a medical examination in March 1999 at the Phygical
Examination Section, 18th Medical Group, Kadena AB, Japan.

7. The Privacy Act Statement of 1974 covers any personal information you furnish in reb@tal.
A copy of AFI 36-3208, is available for your use at the Area Defense Counsel’s office.

8. Execute the attached acknowledgment and return it to me immediately.

  

Attachments:

1. Report of Course Examination, 16 Nov 98;
CDC Failure Assessment Worksheet

2. Report of Course Examination, 21 Dec 98

3. Airman’s Receipt of Notification Memorandum