‘ AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSN/SSAN
sscT |e
X PERSONAL APPEARANCE RECORD REVIEW
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

 

a et ma ABD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEMBERS SITTING UOTHC
_
+—
— |
1 as! a a te eT Xx
ISSUES INDEX NUMBER a (EL EXHIBTig QUEMITIRD IO THE RGAE
A94.06 A67.00 1, | ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2 ) APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 | LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
HEARING DATE CASE NUMBER 4 | BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
5 JUN 03 FD2002-0386 COUNSEL’S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
| ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF |
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
[| -FAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

 

 

 

ELS ISSIR AND. TEBEOARDS DECISIONSE RA’ ene oe uses

  

 

uae Ss

ae ATTACHED, eae GVEW a gDDe DECISIO ene
URE

o :
Me ap Us i ee Penne .

 

is re i ee

" REMA RKS

Case heard at Scott AFB, Illinois.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submitt an application to the AFBCMR.

 

 

RE OF F 13 ae i Fails SIGNATURE OF BOARD PRESIDENT

 

 

SAF/MIBR 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 FD2002-0386

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable, a change in the Reason and
Authority for the discharge, and to the RE Code.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, at Scott
AFB, IL on June 5, 2003. The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing:

Exhibit 5: Applicant’s contentions.
Exhibit 6: Certificate of Appreciation from the Disabled American Veterans
Exhibit 7: Disabled American Veterans membership card
Exhibit 8: QWest Communications business card

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

FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge to General is granted, but upgrade of the discharge to Honorable, the
change to the Reason and Authority for the discharge, and the change to the RE Code is denied.

The Board finds that the evidence of record and that provided by the applicant substantiates both an
| inequity and an impropriety that would justify upgrade of the discharge.

| ISSUES: The applicant was discharged with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge for
Misconduct — Discreditable Involvement with Military or Civil Authorities. Member received three Article
15s, all of which were related in some way to driving while under the influence of alcohol. The first Article
15 was for driving while intoxicated. The second was for driving while intoxicated and for leaving the
scene of an accident, stemming from an incident in which the applicant hit the gate on his way off the base.
The third Article 15 involved a failure to obey the commander’s order not to drive on the installation, an
order given to the applicant after his most recent driving while intoxicated infraction. Later, he received a
letter of reprimand for driving while intoxicated, which ended with an arrest by civilian authorities and
payment of a fine. The incident of misconduct that precipitated his discharge was a violation of a lawful
| general regulation when he compromised testing material by sharing the test answers with another enlisted
| member who was scheduled to take the exam. For this, he received a special court-martial conviction and a
| sentence that included confinement, forfeitures, and reduction in rank but not a punitive separation. After |
being notified of his discharge action, he submitted a conditional waiver for a general characterization. His
commander and the installation legal office both recommended acceptance of the general characterization.
The separation authority, however, approved the UOTHC. The applicant raised essentially one issue; that
he was incorrectly denied a General service characterization after being led to believe he would be
receiving such a characterization.

CONCLUSIONS: The DRB concludes that the issue raised by the applicant has merit. Further, the DRB
concluded that the discharge was not consistent with the procedural or substantive requirements of the
discharge regulation, was not within the discretion of the discharge authority, and that the applicant was not
| provided full administrative due process. Under Air Force regulations if the separation authority does not
| accept a conditional waiver of the discharge board, he can either return the case to the installation to be
heard by a discharge board or can request and unconditional waiver of the board. In this case, the
separation authority discharged the applicant with a UOTHC rather than the General characterization the
applicant’s waiver was conditioned upon. He failed to return the file to the base for a hearing or to demand
an unconditional waiver. This was error. This procedural impropriety justifies an upgrade of the discharge
to General.

While this result was required as a matter of law, the DRB also found that the discharge should be upgraded
as a matter of equity. The DRB was impressed with the applicant, his forthright testimony, and his
accomplishments since leaving the service. This admirable post-service conduct enabled the DRB to more
thoroughly review that facts and circumstances surrounding the misconduct related to the test compromise.
Test compromise offenses are considered to be among the most contemptuous of integrity violations in the
Air Force, representing the height of dishonor. The applicant’s case did not, in the estimation of the DRB, |
represent such an integrity violation. The applicant did not attempt to profit or in some other way benefit
from revelation of the test answers. Rather, it is undisputed the applicant provided the answers to his friend |
because he was attempting to help his friend overcome his personal burdens (by increasing his chance for
promotion). While the applicant’s good intentions do not negate the offense or eliminate the violation of
integrity, it does tend to mitigate the wrongdoing, thereby decreasing the magnitude of the violation of
integrity. In addition, at the hearing the applicant was honest about his misconduct and about his life after
discharge from the service. His attempt to reconstruct his life, his decision to reveal his past to his oldest
son in an effort to help him learn from his father’s mistakes, and his desire to lead an honorable life all
suggested to the DRB that a UOTHC characterization was not appropriate. All of this also demonstrated to
the panel that the applicant’s lost honor has been regained. In that regard, a General (under honorable
conditions) characterization is the most appropriate description of the applicant’s service and his
contribution to the country.

 
   
     
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
     
 

  

Having found an inequity and an impropriety, the DRB partially approves the request for an upgrade,
concluding that the overall quality of applicant’s service is more accurately reflected by a General
discharge. The applicant’s characterization for discharge should be changed to General under the
provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

      
   
  

  

Attachment:
Examiner's Brief
FD2002-0386
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
ANDREWS AFB, MD

fen. nema (Former SSgt) (HGH TSgt)

1. MATTER UNDER REVIEW: Appl rec’d a UOTH Disch fr USAF 14 Sep 95 UP AFI 36-
3208, para 5.50.1(Pattern of Misconduct - Discreditable Involvement with Military
or Civil Authorities). Appeals for Honorable Disch.

2. BACKGROUND:

a. DOB: 17 Feb 60. Enlmt Age: 18 11/12. Disch Age: 35 6/12. Educ: HS DIPL.
AFQT: N/A. A-80, E-45, G-52, M-63. PAFSC: 2G071 - Logistics Plans Craftsman.
DAS: 28 Aug 92.

b. Prior Sv: Enlisted as AB 2 Feb 79 for 6 yrs. Extended 6 Apr 81 for 3
months. Extended 24 Aug 84 for 6 months. Extended 11 Mar 85 for 6 months.
Reenlisted as SSgt 31 Mar 86 for 4 yrs. Extended 17 May 89 for 9 months.
Extended 19 Sep 89 for 3 months. Extended 14 Feb 90 for 12 months. Svd: 12 yrs
11 months 28 days, all AMS. Amn/A1C-(APR Indicates): 7 Feb 79-1 Feb 80. SrA-
(APR Indicates): 2 Feb 80-1 Feb 81. Sgt - 1 Dec 81. SSgt - 1 May 83. TSgt - 1
Mar 89. APRs: 9,7,8,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9. EPRs: 4, 5, 5.

ART 15: 21 Jul 86, Grand Forks AFB, ND - Article 111. You did, on or
about 19 Jul 86, on Sycamore Drive, operate a vehicle, to wit:
a passenger car while drunk. Forfeiture of $300.00 pay per
month for one month. (No appeal) (No mitigation)

3. SERVICE UNDER REVIEW:

a. Reenlisted as TSgt 31 Jan 92 for 6 yrs. Svd: 3 Yrs 7 Mos 14 Das, all

b. Grade Status: SSqt - 18 Jul 95 (SPCMO No.3, 18 Jul 95)
c. Time Lost: None.

d. Art 15’s: (1) 31 Aug 93, McChord AFB, WA - Article 92. You, having
knowledge of a lawful order issued by Lt Col ------- , to

wit: to not operate any motor vehicle upon any military
installation of the United States, an order which it was
your duty to obey, did, on or about 18 Aug 93, fail to
obey the same by wrongfully driving an automobile while
your base driving privileges were revocated. Suspended
reduction to SSgt, and forfeiture of $400.00 pay per
month for two months. (No appeal) (No mitigation)

(2) 25 Mar 93, McChord AFB, WA - Article 111. You, did, on
or about 13 Mar 93, on Main Street, operate a vehicle,
¥D2002-0386

to wit: a passenger car, while drunk. Article 134.

You, the driver of a vehicle at the time of an accident
in which said vehicle was involved, and having knowledge
of said accident, did, on McChord AFB, WA, on or about
13 Mar 1993 wrongfully leave the scene of the accident
without making your identity known. Forfeiture of
$150.00 pay per month for 2 months. (No appeal) (No
mitigation)

e. Additional: LOR, 7 NOV 94 - Driving while intoxicated.
f. CM: Special Court Martial Order No.3 - 18 July 95
CHARGE: Article 92. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Guilty.

Specification: Did, at or near McChord AFB, on or about 24 Oct
94, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: AFI 36-2605,
paragraph 5.13, dated 17 Jun 94, by wrongfully sharing information
about an actual Air Force Promotion Test or highlighted testable
material to MSgt -----~- , an unauthorized individual. Plea: Not
Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Sentence adjudged on 27 April 95:
Reduction to SSgt, forfeiture of $820.00 pay per month for 3
months, hard labor without confinement for 3 months and a
reprimand (IAW Special Court Martial Order No.5, that portion of
the sentence providing for forfeiture in excess of $820.00 pay per
month for 52 days and hard labor without confinement in excess of
52 days remitted).

g. Record of SV: 03 Sep 91 - 15 May 92 Offutt AFB 5 (CRO)
16 May 92 - 15 May 93 McChord AFB 3. (Annual)
16 May 93 - 15 May 94 McChord AFB 3 (Annual)
16 May 94 - 15 May 95 McChord AFB 2 (Annual) REF

(Discharged from McChord AFB)

h. Awards & Decs: JSCM, AFCM W/3 OLCS, AFOUA W/2 OLCS, AFOEA W/1 OLC,
AFGCM W/4 OLCS, NDSM, SWASM W/3 BSS, HSM, AFOSSTR, AFOSLTR, AFLSAR W/3 OLCS,
NCOPMER, BMTHGR, SAEMR, KLM.

1. Stmt of Sv: TMS: (16) Yrs (7) Mos (13) Das
TAMS: (16) Yrs (7) Mos (13) Das

4. BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW: Appln (DD Fm 293) dtd 9 Sep 02.
(Change Discharge to Honorable)

Issue 1: During my initial discharge action I was led to believe through
verbal communication via the JA office (Capt----- ) through my Defense Counsel
(Capt ----- ), that I would receive nothing less than a General Discharge. In
addition the same communication was said to me from my Commander Headquarters
Squadron Section (2Lt ------ ), Director of Logistics (LTC ----- ), who was my
supervisor and Commander, Western Air Defense Sector (Col ----- ). This plus my
pervious (sic) two Honorable Discharges (1986 and 1992) and lengthy service
FD2002-0386
should equate to a minimum General Discharge/Under Honorable Condtions.

Issue 2: Use brief, tab 1, letter dated 19 May 95, para 3, sentences one,
two, three, six and seven. I hereby offer a conditional waiver of the rights
associated with an administrative discharge board hearing. This waiver is
contingent upon my receipt on no less than a general discharge, if the
recommendation for my discharge is approved. I understand that if the convening
authority or the separation authority rejects this waiver the processing of my
ease will continue according to AFI 36-3208. Should this waiver be approved
along with a general or higher discharge, I do not desire lengthy service
consideration. However, if a general or higher is not approved, I do desire
lengthy service consideration. My Conditional Waiver was not fully adhered to.

Issue 3: Use brief, tab 1, letter dated S June 1995, para 1, sentences
three and four. TSgt ----~-- has waived his entitlement to a hearing by
administrative discharge board contingent upon his receiving no less than a
general discharge. We concur with the recommendation that TSgt ----- be
separated with a general discharge without an offer of probation and
rehabilitation.

Issue 4: Use brief, tab 1, letter dated 12 June 1995, para 2, sentences
three and four. Moreover, the court martial panel reviewed all of the
information concerning TSgt ---~-~- service record and offenses and chose not to
impose a punitive discharge. Therefore, it is probable that a discharge board
reviewing the same information would come to a similar conclusion and award a
general rather than a UOTHC dischare.

ATCH

1. Copy of Military Personnel Records.

2. Performance Reports.

3. Other Military/Achievements Documents.
4. Post Military Documents.

5. Support Letters.

1ODECO2/ia
Pp 2222-03 86

j

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS 620 AIRLIFT WING (AMC)

 

MEMORANDUM FOR 62 AW/CC | 5 June 95
FROM: 62 AW/JA (Capt RQ 12)

SUBJECT: Legal Review of AFI 36-3208 Discharge Action - TS cee.

NER. WADS/LGX

1. We have reviewed the attached discharge package. We find it legally sufficient
to support the separation of TS gillian for a pattern of misconduct under AFI
36-3208, para 5.50.1. TSetQiiehas waived his entitlement to a hearing by an
administrative discharge board contingent upon his receiving no less than a
general discharge. We concur with the recommendation that TS @jjiies be
separated with a general discharge without an offer of probation and rehabilitation.

2. On 13 March 1993, TSglillliten operated a vehicle while he was drunk, and
then departed the scene without making his identity known. For these offenses, he
received an Article 15. On 18 August 1993, TSA drove on McChord

AFB while his base driving privileges were revoked. For this offense he received
another Article 15. On 26 June 1994, TS ohio drove a vehicle off base while
he was drunk. For this offense he received a letter of reprimand, which was
included in his UIF. On 24 Oct 94, TS gfe violated a lawful general
regulation by wrongfully sharing information about an actual Air Force Promotion
Test. For this offense he was convicted and sentenced by a special court-martial.
His sentence included a reprimand, reduction to E-5, forfeiture of $820 pay per
month for three months, and three months hard labor without confinement.

3. TS igi is 35 years old and has sixteen years of active duty service. On
his thirteen APRs, TSgt received eleven 9s and two 8s. On his six EPRs, he
received three 5s, one 4, and two 3s. TSgt&i@iMMewas properly notified of this
action, informed of his rights, and other than his conditional waiver of his
entitlement to a discharge board and lengthy service probation consideration,
provided no written response to this proposed action.

4. IAW AFT 36-3208, para 5.50.1, an airman should be discharged for a pattern of
misconduct, including discreditable involvement with military or civil authorities.
TS ot Gem misconduct certainly constitutes such a pattern and there is
sufficient documentation to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a

AMC-GLOBAL REACH FOR AMERICA
FD 2002- 03286

ts

i
discharge is warranted. TSgt §9@MMMPSquadron Section Commander, 2Lt iy:
SRAM does not recommend probation and rehabilitation, noting that every —
effort to rehabilitate him has been made and failed. We concur. TSgt |
service record during this term of enlistment beginning 31 Jan 92 should be
considered when determining the characterization of his service. A general
discharge is appropriate in this case because the significant negative aspects of
TSet conduct outweigh the positive aspects of his military record. While
2L id recommend a UOTHC discharge, a general discharge without
probation does protect the interests of the Air Force in this case. Acceptance of
TS gta: on ditional waiver of a discharge board hearing and lengthy service
review facilitates the expeditious discharge of a member who clearly has no
rehabilitative potential. Moreover, the court-martial panel reviewed all of the
information concerning TSet WRMRervice record and offenses and chose not

to impose a punitive discharge. Therefore, it is probable that a discharge board
reviewing the same information would come to a similar conclusion and award a

general rather than a UOTHC discharge.

5. Errors and Irregularities: We note one minor irregularity in the file. There is
not a report of a medical examination included. Such a report must be included
before the discharge is finalized. Note also that on 21 July 86, TSet STi.
received an Aritcle 15 for driving a vheicle while drunk. Because this offense was
committed in a previous enlistment, you should not consider this offense for any
purpose in this discharge case.

6. Your options are:

a. Retain TS ceiiiirin the Air Force;

b. Reject the conditional waiver and tell TS gti that either an
unconditional waiver or a request for a board hearing may be submitted; or,

c. Recommend acceptance of the conditional waiver and send it to 15
_AF/CC for decision.

7. If approved, this discharge should not be executed until you take final action on
TSgt@QQMPcourt-martial and the appellate review is finalized. Currently, the
court-martial transcript is being transcribed. Since TS gi@@MMMMME sentence does

not include a bad conduct discharge, {5 AF/CC may waive this requirement under
AFT 36-3208, para 1.9.2.
PD 2202-08 Fe

8. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that you forward to 15 AF/CC a

recommendation that Tsoi? conditional waiver be accepted. We also
recommend TSgt@iiiiiesbe barred from McChord AFB effective the date of his

 

{ - . discharge, if approved. Please sign the letters at Tab 1 if you concur with this
ay recommendation.

| 2s

Col, USAF
Staff Judge Advocate

Attachment:

. 1. Case File

g:\miljus\disch\5-50jat.doc(mks) - a:willsII\
oy | . FrP2zeo2z-Os8&6

15 May 1995

MEMORANDUM FOR TS etQgiasiasaaanOaNIS.

WADS/LGX
FROM: WADS/CC
SUBJECT: Notification Letter-Board Hearing

i. Iam recommending your discharge from the United States Air Force for a Discreditable Involvement
with Civilian or Military Authorities according to AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, under the provisions of
paragraph 5.50.1. Copies of the documents to be forwarded to the separation authority to support this
recommendation are attached,

2, My reasons for this action are:

a. You did at or near McChord Air Force Base, on or about 24 Oct 94, violate a lawful general
regulation, to wit AFI 36-2605, para 5.13, dated 17 Jun 94, by wrongfully sharing information about an
actual Air Force Promotion Test or highlighted testable material to we an unauthorized

individual. For this offense you were convicted and sentenced by a special court martial from 25 - 27
April 1995. (see atchs 4, 5, & 6)

b. On or about 26 June 1994, you drove while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and/or drugs at
or near Auburn, Washington, You were given a letter of reprimand dated 7 Nov 94 which was included
in your UIF. (see atch 1)

c. On or about 18 August 1993, you drove on McChord AFB while your base driving privileges were
revoked. You were given an Article 15 dated 31 Aug 93 for violation of Article 92, with a reduction to
SSet (suspended) and forfeiture of $400 per month for two months . (see atch 2)

d, On or about 13 March 1993, you operated a passenger vehicle while drunk and wrongfully departed
the scene of an accident without making your identity known. You were given an Article 15, dated 25
Mar 93 for violation of Articles 111 and 134, forfeiture of $150 per month for two months and MSet
promotion withdrawn. (see atch 3)

3. This action could result in your separation with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
(UOTHC). I am recommending that you receive an UOTHC discharge. The commander exercising

SPCM jurisdiction or a higher authority will make the final decision in this matter. If you are discharged,
you will be ineligible for reenlistment in the Air Force and will probably be denied enlistment in any
component in the Armed Forces.

4. You have the right to:

a, Consult legal counsel.

b, Present your case to an administrative discharge board.

c. Be represented by legal counsel at a board hearing.

d, Submit statements in your own behalf in addition to, or in lieu of, the board hearing.

e. Waive the above rights. You must consult legal counsel before making a decision to waive any of
your rights.

5. You were previously scheduled for and attended a separations physical on 16 Nov 94, therefore no
further physical examination is required.
PD 2007-03 5

4) Convicted by Special Court Martial on 26 Apr 95 for violation of a general lawful regulation,
Sentence ajudged was a reprimand, reduction to E-5, forfeiture of $820 pay per moth for 3 months, and 3
months hard labor without confinement.

j. Overall rating or ratings on enlisted performance report:

Rating CoD Rating CoD Rating COD

3 15 May 94 9 20 Oct 89 9 14 Oct 84
3 15 May 93 9 20 Oct 88 9 29 Mar 84
5 15 May 92 9 20 Oct 87 9 1 Jun 83
5 2 Sep 91 9 1 Apr 87 9 1 Feb 83
5 1 Feb 91 9 1 Apr 86 8 1 Feb 82
4 16 Aug 90 9 1 Apr 85 8 1 Feb 81
9 1 Feb 80

k. Favorable communications, citations, or awards: Joint Service Commendation Medal, AF
Commendation Medal w/ 30LC, AF Excellence Award, AF Outstanding Unit Award w/LOLC, AF Good
Conduct Medal w/4OLC, NCO Professional Military Education, Small Arms Expert ribbon, AF Basic
Military Training Honor Graduate ribbon, National Defense Service Medal, AF Overseas Long tour, AF
Overseas Short tour, SW Asia Service Medal w/3 devices, AF Training Ribbon, AF Longevity Service
Award w/20LC.

1. Derogatory data, other than action by courts-martial or under Article 15, UCMI:
1) Air Force Good Conduct Medal denied (Atch 8, Notification Memorandum)

2) Letter of Reprimand dated 7 Nov 94, Unfavorable Informataion File. (Atch 1, Notification
Memorandum)

m. Medical or other data meriting consideration: None,
n. Member does not hold an appointment as a Reserve commissioned or warrant officer.

3. Before recommending this discharge the member has been counseled and referred to Social Actions.
In addition, he has attended an in-patient Alcohol Rehabilitation Program at Travis AFB in August 1994,

4. I do not recommend probation and rehabilitation according to chapter 7, During this present
enlistment member has received one LOR, two Article 15s, and was convicted by special court martial for
violation of a general lawful regulation (WAPS test compromise). Based on the serious nature of his
misconduct, this member’s trustworthiness and dependability is virtually non-existent. All previous
efforts at rehabilitation have met with further misconduct. His discharge is in the best interest of the Air
Force,

    

- . welt, USAF
Commander, Headquarters Squadron Section

5 Atch

1. Cy Notification Ltr w/ atchs

2. Acknowledge of Receipt of Notification Memorandum
3. Airman’s Statement

4, Medical Examination

5

. EPRs