£
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSN/SSAN
ees | AMN QRS
TYPE
GEN PERSONAL APPEARANCE X RECORD REVIEW
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
YES NO
x

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEMBERS SITTING
xX
xX
CC x
Se x
, =e} x
ISSUES INDEX NUMBER ee ene ulate 5 HE ROARS ee ear
A94.53, AQI,43 A67,50 1 | ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2 «| APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 | LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
HEARING DATE CASE NEMBER 4 | BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
17 JULY 03 FD2003-00043

COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD

 

ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

 

 

 

 

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

 

 

tet deel RPE DECEH Eu

 

REMARKS

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to
submit an application to the AFBCMR.

a

 
   

 

SIGNATURE OF RECORG SIGNATURE OF BOARD PRESIDENT

(

 

 

ee
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 | ppy9993-99043

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

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

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

Issues. Applicant was discharged for a pattern of misconduct. He had an Article 15, seven Records of
Individual Counseling, six Letters of Reprimand, an Enlisted Performance Report that was rated an overall
referral “1,” and was placed on the Control Roster. His misconduct occurred over an 12-month period and
included failure to go or being late for duty five times, failure to obey a lawful order, failing to follow the
appropriate technical order, driving a government vehicle at an unsafe speed, failing to follow safety
procedures, failure to follow required procedures, and dereliction of duty by failure to follow military
inspection procedures. Member’s medical records disclosed he was returned to duty after a medical
evaluation board in which he was diagnosed with attention-deficit / hyperactivity disorder of the inattentive
type, something for which he had apparently been treated from age 5 to 12, but which wasn’t reflected on
his enlistment physical. With regard to applicant’s misconduct, the Board noted member had had at least 14
separate opportunities to improve his behavior. At the time of the discharge, member consulted counsel but
waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf. The Board noted that member was age 24 to 25
when his offenses occurred, the same age as other airmen who adhere to standards. He was counseled
repeatedly in an effort to help him correct his deficiencies. In spite of those rehabilitative efforts, he was
unwilling or unable to improve his behavior. The Board concluded applicant knew nght from wrong and
was responsible for his actions, and therefore was held accountable for them. No inequity or impropriety
was found in this discharge in the course of the records review. Furthermore, since some of the discharge
documents are not available for review, and lacking any evidence from the applicant to the contrary, the
Board must rely on the presumption of regularity and found no wrongful action by the Air Force, and finds
the discharge proper and without basis for upgrade.

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
FD2003-00043
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
ANDREWS AFB, MD

(Former AMN) {HGH A1C)
MISSING DOCUMENTS

 

1. MATTER UNDER REVIEW: Appl rec’d a GEN Disch fr USAF 10 Oct 01 UP AFI 36-
3208, para 5.50.2 (Pattern of Misconduct). Appeals for Honorable Disch.

2. BACKGROUND:

a. DOB: 26 Apr 76. Enlmt Age: 22 0/12. Disch Age: 25 5/12. Educ: HS DIPL.
AFOT: N/A. A-68, E-41, G-39, M-64. PAFSC: 2A353B ~- Tactical Maintenance
Specialist Journeyman. DAS: 24 Feb 00.

b. Prior Sv: {1) AFRes 27 Apr 98 - 12 May 98 (16 days) (Inactive).
3. SERVICE UNDER REVIEW:
a. Enlisted as AB 13 May 98 for 6 yrs. Svd: 3 Yrs 4 Mos 28 Das, all AMS,

b. Grade Status: AMN - 27 Apr 61 (Article 15, 27 Apr 01)
AlC - 27 Jun 98

c. Time Lost: None.

d. Art 15's: (1) 27 Apr O01, Luke AFB, AZ - Article 92. You, who knew of
your duties, between on or about 23 Jul 01 and on or
about 30 Jul 01, were derelict in the performance of
those duties in that you negligently failed to properly
follow procedures for checking equipment in and out of
your unit as it was your duty to do. Reduction to Amn,
(No appeal) (No mitigation)

e. Additional: - (Examiner's Note: The Legal Review is the source
of the following additional infractions)

LOR, 09 MAY 01 - Failure to obey a lawful order.

RIC, 15 MAR 01 - Failure to return to duty.

Ric, O07 FEB 01 - Failure to ga.

LOR, 11 DEC 0@ - Failure to properly ensure the main fuel
shut-off valve was correctly positioned
for engine removal.

LOR, @2 NOV 00 - Dereliction of duty by failing to comply
with inspection standards.

LOR, 28 AUG 00 - Dereliction of duty by failing to comply
with inspection standards.

RIC, 22 AUG 00 - Failure to go.

LOR, 21 AUG 00 - Dereliction of duty by failing to comply
with military standards.
f. CM: None.

g. Record of SV:

h. Awards & Decs:

i. Stmt of Sv:

4. BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW:

LOR, 12 JUN
RIC, 09 JUN
RIC, 26 MAY
RIC, 25 MAY
RIC, 23 MAY

13 Jan 00

00

00
00
00
00

FD2003-00043

- Failure to follow proper safety

procedures.
- Failure to go.

- Speeding with government vehicle.

- Failure to go.

- Failure to abide by appropriate technical

order.

11 Feb 01 Luke AFB

{Discharged from Luke AFB)

TMS:
TAMS :

(3)

AFTR, AFOSSTR, AFOUA, AFGCM.

Yrs (5) Mos {14) Das

(3) Yrs (4) Mos (28) Das

(Change Discharge to Honorable)

NO ISSUES SUBMITTED.

ATCH
None.

2

(Annua 1} REF

Appin (DD Fm 293) dtd 24 Jan 03.

21MAR03/ia
-  fy2803 - ELOFB
JEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FOR ¢. .
56th Fighter Wing (AETC)

Luke Air Force Base Arizona

 

MEMORANDUM FOR 56 FW/CC

FROM: 56 FW/JA

SUBJECT: on Review of Administrative Discharge — an a—eaiaiii

| 309 FS

1. ACTION: This case is before you for review and action in your capacity as the separation
authority. The 309 FS/CC recommends the Respondent be separated from the United States Air
Force with a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation pursuant to AFI 36-3208,
paragraph 5.50.2 for a Pattern of Misconduct. I concur.

2. BACKGROUND: The Respondent is 25 years old and has been on active duty in the United
States Air Force for approximately three years and 4 months. He is serving an initial six-year
enlistment. His AQE scores are: Admin - 68; Elect - 41; Gen - 39; and Mech - 64. The
Respondent's awards and decorations include the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award, Air Force
Overseas Short Tour Ribbon and the Air Force Training Ribbon. The member has received one
EPR dated 13 Jan 00 - 11 Feb 01 with a rating of 2.

3. FACTS: The following actions from the Respondent’s current enlistment establish a pattern
of misconduct under paragraph 5.50.2:

a. On 23 May 00, the Respondent failed to abide by the appropriate technical order and was
given a Record of Individual Counseling.

b. On 26 May 00, the Respondent operated a government vehicle at an unsafe speed and was
given a Record of Individual Counseling. “

c. On 25 May 00, the Respondent failed to report to his appointed place of duty at the time
prescribed and was given a.Record of Individual Counseling.

d. On 9 Jun 00, the Respondent failed to report to his appointed place of duty at the time
prescribed and was given a Record of Individual Counseling.

e. On 12 Jun 00, the Respondent failed to follow proper safety procedures. He was given a
Letter of Reprimand and was placed on a Control Roster.

f. On 21 Aug 00, the Respondent was derelict in his duty performance by failing to comply *
with military inspection standards. He received a Letter of Reprimand for this misconduct.

-Altorney Work Product—
This work product has been prepared by an attorney in the course of performing legal duties on behalf of a client, and is not to be
provided to anyone outside the Air Force without approval of the originator or higher authority. It is exempt from disclosure under the
Freedom of Infornmtion Act under § U.S.C. §552(b)(5} and protected from release under FRCP 26(h)(3).
Pp2203 ~ CCOYS

g. On 22 Aug 00, the Respondent failed to report to his appointed place of duty at the time
prescribed and was given a Record of Individual Counseling.

h. On 28 Aug 00, the Respondent was derelict in his duty performance by failing to comply
with military inspection standards and was given a Letter of Reprimand.

i. On 2 Nov 00, the Respondent was derelict in his duty performance by failing to comply
with military inspection standards and was given a Letter of Reprimand.

j. On tt Dec 00, the Respondent failed to properly ensure the main fuel shut-off valve was
correctly positioned for engine removal and was given a Letter of Reprimand. °

k. On 7 Feb O1, the Respondent failed to report to his appointed place of duty at the
prescribed time and was given a Record of Individual Counseling.

l. On 15 Mar O1, the Respondent failed to return to duty and was given a Record of
Individual Counseling.

m. On 9 May O01, the Respondent failed to obey a lawful order to report to the emergency
room for treatment and was given a Letter of Reprimand.

n. Between on about 23 Jul 01 and on or about 30 Jul 01, the Respondent was derelict in his

duty performance by failing to properly follow procedures for checking equipment in and out, as
it was his duty to do. He received an Article 15 for this misconduct and the punishment included

a reduction to the grade of E-2.

4, RESPONDENT’S MATTERS: The Respondent met with military defense counsel and
elected not to submit a statement for your consideration regarding this discharge action.

5. CHARACTERIZATION OF DISCHARGE: The Respondent’s commander recommends a
general discharge service characterization for Amn Long’s term of service. A general {under
honorable conditions) characterization of service is appropmiate if the airman’s service has been
honest and faithful, and if significant negative aspects of the airman’s conduct or duty
performance outweigh the positive aspects of his record. During his enlistment, Amn Long has
received eight Records of Individual Counseling, five Letters of Reprimand, an Unfavorable
Information File, a Control Roster, and an Article 15. The negative aspects outweigh the
positive aspects of his service record; therefore, a general discharge is appropriate. °

6. PROBATION AND REHABILITATION (P&R); P&R, in accordance with AFI 36-3208,
Chapter 7, would be inappropnate in this case and contrary to the best interests of good order and
discipline. Amr? failed to respond to past rehabilitative efforts and it is unlikely further
probation and rehabilitation would be productive.
fp 2008 ~ ORO 43

7. LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: There is a sufficient factual basis to support this discharge.
Further, this file has been prepared in substantial compliance with the provisions of AFI 36-
3208. Finally, the Respondent has been notified of this discharge, was given the opportunity to
meet with the Area Defense Counsel and to present matters for your consideration. For these

reasons, we find this case file legally sufficient.
8. OPTIONS: As the separation authority you have the following options:

* a. Retain the Respondent; or

b. Separate the Respondent with a general discharge, with or without probation and
rehabilitation; or

c. Forward the case to 19 AF/CC recommending the Respondent receive an honorable
discharge, with or without probation and rehabilitation; or

d. If you feel an under other than honorable conditions discharge is appropriate, return the
package to the squadron for processing in accordance with administrative discharge procedures.

9. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, I recommend you separate the Respondent
from the United States Air Force with a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation
for a Patten of Misconduct pursuant to AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.50.2.

  

t Col, USAF

 

‘Staff Judge Advocate