AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

 

  
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSN/SSAN
AIC ae.
X PERSONAL APPEARANCE RECORD REVIEW
IN NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
YES NO
x
MEMBERS SITTING “HON | GEN UoTdc | OTHER “DENY
xX
ISSUES INDEX NUMBER fd EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD.
A92.01, A92.02, A95.00 A61.00 1 | ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2 | APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 | LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
HEARING DATE CASE NUMBER 4 | BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
6 FEB 03 FD2002-0380 COUNSEL’S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
’ ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAI APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

 

 

 

(RPECICANTS ISSUE AND THE BOARD S DECISIONAL RATIONA AREDISCOSSED ON FEB /ATTACHED AIRFORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE.
; RE ae eed he, i es

REMARKS

 

Ny

Case heard at Travis AFB, CA cae ih
we
Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

SIGNATURE OF BQARD PRESIDENT

  

 

» INDORSEMENT DATE: 6 FEB:03

 

    

TO:
SAF/MIBR ae SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
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 be used.
CASE NUMBER

    
 
     
  
 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE | 52902-0380

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and for a change in the reason
and authority for the discharge and in the RE code.

  
     
   
  
   
  
 
     
    
   
   
     
    
     
   
     
   
     
   
   
         
     
   
   
   
   
     

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, at
m= CA on February 6, 2003. HS, the applicant’s father, also appeared and testified on behalf of the
applicant.

 

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit 5: Applicant’s Contentions;
Exhibit 6: Character Letter fro m Community Presbyterian Church, 3 Feb 03; Exhibit 7:
Character Letter from Me, Wilbur Police Dept, 8 Jan 03; Exhibit 8: Character Letter from
Red Baron Aviation, 30 Jan 03; Exhibit 9: Character Letter fi om aay
Police Dept, 16 Jan 03; Exhibit 10: Character Letter from en
Statement from the Applicant, 31 Jan 03; Exhibit 12; Statement from
5 Feb 03; Exhibit 13: Character Letter from QRRMNER 2 Feb 03;
MUSAFR), 15 Jan 03; Exhibit 15: Character Letter from

atement fron Sata,

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

   
  

  
  

    
   
  

ad

   
   

bChief of —
Seer, 22 Jan 03; Exhidi

MM the Applicant’s Moths r

Exhibit 14: Statement from

1 Feb 03;

    
 

  
 

  

FINDINGS: The DRB denies the requested relief.

  

The DRB finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an
inequity or impropriety that would justify an upgrade of the discharge or a change to the reason and
authority for the discharge or RE code.

  

ISSUES: The applicant was discharged with a general discharge upon the recommendation of an
administrative discharge board. The record indicates the applicant was discharged after receiving a civilian
conviction (pursuant to a guilty plea and a no contest plea — a plea that allows the applicant to avoid
admitting guilt but that requires him to admit the evidence is sufficient to convict him beyond a reasonable
doubt) on two counts of second degree (intentional) child abuse. The applicant was originally charged with
first degree (intentional) child abuse, a more serious charge.

According to the record and the evidence adduced at the hearing, his 10-day-old son suffered head injuries
(a hemotoma) and broken ribs (it was not clear from the record or the applicant’s testimony how many ribs
were broken) while in the applicant’s care. The applicant’s description of the incident differed somewhat
from the account provided in his unsworn statement at the administrative discharge board. During the
DRB, he indicated that to the best of his knowledge, the baby, who was being cradled in the applicant’s
arms, accidentally bumped his head on the couch post when the applicant tried to get up from the couch.
The applicant had heard his older son (then approximately 18 months old) in the kitchen trying to get into
the knife drawer. As he got up off the couch to attend to his older son, he his arms dropped (while
continuing to hold the child) causing the baby to hit his head. Not realizing what he had done, he carried
the baby into the kitchen. His administrative discharge board testimony, however, differed in that he stated
he dropped the baby on the ground and left the baby on the ground when he went into the kitchen. He
testified further that when he returned to the living room, he picked up the crying baby and started
squeezing him to calm him down. At the DRB hearing, he stated he returned to the living room with the
baby and began hugging him tightly with the baby over his shoulder in the same position one would use to
burp a baby. He demonstrated a hugging/squeezing/patting motion that he felt “could have” broken the
baby’s ribs. He said he thought this was the only thing that might have resulted in the baby’s broken ribs.
He claims that neither he nor his wife noticed any bruises or had any idea the baby had been injured as
badly as it had. He also stated the baby had no other known health problems and that the baby’s birth was
quick and uneventful. Finally, he mentioned that his wife, who was taking a shower at the time of the
incident, was convicted of fourth degree child abuse. He stated he only pled guilty to intentionally hurting
the child in order to prevent his wife from also being prosecuted for first degree child abuse. The applicant
is divorced and has not seen his ex-wife or children since he began his 21-month prison term, which is now
complete. The applicant was uncertain of the current health of the baby, though his father was aware there
was some permanent brain damage.

    
   
   
   
   
   
    
     
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
     
 
 
   
   
  

  

Notwithstanding the applicant’s ambiguous testimony and the lack of medical evidence in the case, it was
clear to the DRB the evidence (particularly the description of the occurrence of the baby’s injuries) did not
support the applicant’s account of the incident. The DRB was not convinced the applicant’s actions, as he
describes them, could have caused the injuries to the baby. In short, the DRB concluded the applicant was
not being truthful about how he caused the baby’s injuries. The DRB also did not believe the applicant pled
guilty to intentionally breaking the child’s ribs (and no contest to the head injuries) in an effort to avoid his
wife’s prosecution. There are two reasons it was difficult to accept this proposition. First, the DRB was not
convinced he would admit guilt to such a heinous crime if the injuries were caused by accident as the
applicant claimed. Second, if the crimes were actually an accident and his wife was not present in the room
when the accident occurred, he could have cleared his wife with a simple explanation to the authorities or
even by pleading no contest to the nb injuries. The DRB was not convinced the applicant pled guilty to a
crime he did not commit, but rather that he pled guilty because he was guilty—the evidence in the file
supports this conclusion.

  

Although the applicant did have acceptable duty performance during his brief career, his crimes so
outweigh his service that changing the character, the reason and authority, and the RE code would not be
remotely in the best interests of the Air Force.

 
 
   
   
 
  

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. Hence, the request for relief is denied.

  
   

Attachment:
Examiner's Brief
iad

FD2002-0380
DEPARTMENT OF THE ATR FORCE

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
ANDREWS AFB, MD

ae (Former A1C) (HGH A1C)

1. MATTER UNDER REVIEW: Appl rec’d a GEN Disch fr USAF 11 May 98 UP AFI 36-

3208, para 5.51.1 (Civilian Conviction). Appeals for Honorable Discharge, to
Change the RE Code, and Reason & Authority for Disch.

2. BACKGROUND:

a. DOB: 23 Apr 73. Enlmt Age: 22 11/12. Disch Age: 25 0/12. Educ: HS DIPL.
AFQOT: N/A. A-68, E-50, G-55, M-65. PAFSC: 2A531A - Aerospace Maintenance
Apprentice. DAS: 22 Dec 96.

b. Prior Sv: (1) AFRes 19 Apr 96 - 01 May 96 (13 days) (Inactive).

3. SERVICE UNDER REVIEW:

a. Enlisted as AB 2 May 96 for 4 yrs. Svd: 2 Yrs 0 Mos 9 Das, of which AMS
is 1 year 10 months 27 days (excludes 1 month 13 days lost time).

b. Grade Status: A1lC - 2 SEP 97
AMN - 2 NOV 96

c. Time Lost: 23 Feb 98-25Feb 98/31 Mar 98-11 May 98 (1 month 13 days).
da. Art 15's: None.
e. Additional: None.

f. CM: None,

g. Record of SV: 2 May 96 - 1 Jan 98 McChord AFB 1 (Initial) REF
(Discharged from McChord AFB)

h. Awards & Decs: AFTR, AFOUA W/1 DEV.

i. Stmt of Sv: TMS: (1) Yrs (11) Mos (10) Das
TAMS: (1) Yrs (10) Mos (27) Das

4. BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW: Appin (DD Fm 233) dtd 6 Sep 02

(Change Discharge to Honorable, Change the RE Code, and Change the Reason &
Authority for Discharge)

Issue 1: I would like to re-enlist into the Air Force. In order for me to
do so it needs to be upgraded. I enjoyed the Air Force and was doing
exceptional work. If at all possible I would like to serve my country again.
FD2002-0380

ATCH
1. AF Form 100.

2. Four Character References.
3. Recommendation for Discharge.
4. Letter of Recommendation.

6DECO2/ia
“  FOD260z- 0F SO

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS 62D AIRLIFT WING (AMC)

   

1947-1597

22 April 1998

MEMORANDUM FOR 62 AW/CC

FROM: 62 AW/JA

SUBJECT: Administrative Discharge Board

 

1. We have reviewed the Administrative Discharge Board record pertaining to the above
referenced case and have found it legally sufficient.

2, SUMMARY OF CASE: On 2 March 1998, 62 AGS/CC initiated administrative discharge

action against AMIN espondent) under the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Military
Retirements and Separation, and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, Chapter 5,

Section H, paragraph 5.51.1, for a civilian conviction. 62 AGS/CC identified the following
reason for discharge in the Notification Letter:

On 23 February 1998, the Superior Court of the State of Washington, in and for the County of
Pierce, convicted ee of two counts of assault of a child in the second degree. The basis
of the conviction was that between on or about 14 January 1997 and on or about 2 February

1997 ,