I  NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) 

I  GRADE 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD 

TYPE  GEN 

6,?qmm 

X 
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION 

PERSONAL APPEARANCE 

YES 

No 
X 

A1C 

RECORD REVIEW 

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL 

INDEX NUMBER  A67.90 

ISSUES  A94.11 
A01.13 
A94.05 
A90.07 
A90.09 

I 

1 
2 
3 
4 

HEARJNG DATE 

CASE NUMBER 

I 

I 

I 

EXHIBITS SUBMITIXD TO,TPIE BOARD 

I 

ORDER APPOINTING  THE BOARD 
APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE 
LETTER OF NOTIFICATION 
BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE 
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD 
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF 
PERSONAL APPEARANCE 

23 Apr 2004 
APPLICANT S ISSIIE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIQNAL RATIONAL ARE W S $ U v  ON THE AlTACHBD AIR FORCE DISCHARGE R E Y W  BOARD DECISIONAL~RAllONALE 

FD-2003-00464 

I 

I 

I 

Case heard at Washington, D.C. 

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance withlwithout counsel, and the right to 
submit an application to the AFBCMR 

TO: 

I 

SAFIMRBR 
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781 50-4742 

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 

FROM: 

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

I 
(EF-V2) 

Previous edition will be used 

I 

I 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE 

CASE NUMBER 

FD-2003-00464 

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

The  applicant  personally  appeared  before  the  Discharge  Review  Board  (DRB)  at  Andrews AFB  MD  on 
April  23,  2004,  via  VTC  from  Ft.  Gillem  GA.  He  was  represented  by  Mr. -of 
the  Florida 
Department of Veterans Affairs. 

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. 
The  applicant  submitted  the  following  additional  evidence  -  Exhibit  #6:  Character  Letter  from  MG,  the 
applicant's father; Exhibit #7: Character Letter from RA. 

FINDINGS: The Board grants the requested relief. 

ISSUE: 

The applicant was  discharged  with a general  service characterization  for conduct prejudicial to  good order 
and  discipline.  He  received  a  single  Article  15  for  his  part  in  a  racially  segregated  brawl  involving 
approximately  10-15 participants that took  place at the NCO club parking  lot and for allegedly  leaving the 
installation to avoid law enforcement investigators. 

Issue 1.  The applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The DRB agrees.  The 
only disciplinary action supporting the applicant's discharge was the single Article 15.  The DRB found two 
problems with this fact.  First, the DRB was uncomfortable with the notion of discharging a member with an 
adverse service characterization on the basis of a single Article 15.  To be sure, it is permissible for the 
command to take such action, particularly when the action concerns a serious fight.  But in this case, the 
DRB thought this Article 15 to be insufficient to support the discharge action.  The primary concern in this 
regard was whether and to what extent the applicant was truly involved in the fight - the file contained no 
evidence or other information concerning the fight, other than the Article  15.  Second, Article  15 actions are 
well known to be rehabilitative tools.  There was absolutely no indication the applicant was given an 
opportunity to avail himself of the rehabilitative opportunity.  If discharge was a possibility given the 
seriousness of the charges, a summary court-martial (a purely disciplinary tool) followed by the discharge 
would have been more appropriate. 

Issue 2.  The applicant contends that the command acted arbitrarily and capriciously and that there was 
supervisory mismanagement.  The DRB agrees.  The applicant commented, rather offhandedly in response 
to a question from a Board member, that his first sergeant told him he would not help him deal with this 
issue because there was nothing he could do.  The DRB found the applicant's statement in this regard 
credible because the response was solicited and because the applicant probably would have had no way to 
know how the DRB might react to such a comment.  The DRB was disturbed by the prevalence of such an 
attitude, especially from the first sergeant.  The DRB was also troubled by the lack of documentation 
supporting the Article  15, the apparent "quick trigger" nature of the case, the failure of the command to use 
the Article 15 as a rehabilitative tool, and the poor application of disciplinary action.  With regard to the 
latter, if the fight was so serious that it alone provided a basis for the applicant's discharge (e.g., because the 
two men were seriously hurt or the applicant started the melee), then the Article  15 was not the appropriate 
disciplinary action.  On the other hand, if the incident was not serious enough to justify  more than an Article 
15, then a discharge based on the single event was (as explained above) not appropriate. 

Issue 3.  The applicant contends there was insufficient evidence to support the disciplinary action and 
discharge.  The DRB agrees.  There was no evidence in the file but for the Article 15 action.  Ordinarily, the 
presumption of regularity is sufficient to sustain the action.  However, in this case the DRB was unwilling to 
apply the presumption of regularity because several significant possibilities could not be ignored: the 
applicant could easily have been fighting in self-defense, the applicant could easily have been misidentified 
by the other Caucasian participants, or the Caucasian participants may have designed their statements to 
place the blame on the applicant (and his cohorts) in an effort to escape culpability for their roles in the fight. 

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge  Review Board  concludes that the  discharge was  not  consistent with the 
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. 

In  view  of  the  foregoing  findings  the  Board  concludes  that  there  exists  a  legal  and  equitable  basis  for 
upgrade of discharge. 

The applicant's characterization should be changed to honorable under the provisions of Title 10, USC  1553. 

Attachment: 
Examiner's Brief 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE RENIEW BOARD 

ANDREWS AFB, MD 

(Former AMN)  (HGH AlC) 

i 
1.  MATTER UNDER REVIEW:  Appl rec'd a GEN Disch fr USAF 4 May 92 UP AFR 39-10, 
para 5-47b (Misconduct -  Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline). 
Appeals for Honorable Disch. 
2 .  BACKGROUND : 

a. DOB: 25 Sep 70.  Enlmt Age: 18 4/12.  Disch Age: 21 7/12. Educ:HS DIPL. 
AFQT: N/A.  A-45,  E-54,  G-48,  M-49. PAFSC: 90230 - Apprentice Medical Services 
Specialist. DAS: 2 Dec 91. 

b.  Prior Sv:  (1) AFRes 31 Jan 89 -  11 Dec 89(10 Months 11 Days) (Inactive). 

3.  SERVICE UNDER REVIEW: 

a.  Enld as A1C 12 Dec 89 for 4 yrs. Svd: 2 Yrs 4 Mos 23 Das, all AMS. 

b.  Grade Status:  AMN -  5 Mar 92 (Article 15, 5 Mar 92) 

c.  Time Lost:  None. 

d.  Art 15's:  (1) 5 Mar 92, Tinker AFB, OK -  Article 128 &  134.  You did, 

" 

the face, chest, and other parts of his body, 

on or about 25 Jan 92, unlawfully strike AMN- 
-in 
with your hands and fists.  Further investigation has 
disclosed that you did, on or about 25 Jan 92, 
unlawfully strike SRA 
chest, and other parts- 
fists.  Further investigation also has disclosed that 
you did, on or about 25 Jan 92, wrongfully endeavor to 
impede an investigation by staying off-base with 
individuals in an attempt to elude contact with law 
enforcement officials, although you were aware of their 
attempts to contact you for questioning regarding the 
assault which occurred in the parking lot of the Tinker 
AFB NCO Club on 25 Jan 92.  Reduction to AMN, forfeiture 
of $200.00 per month for two months, 30 days extra duty, 
and a reprimand.  (Appeal/Denied) (No mitigation) 

in the face, 
your hands and 

e.  Additional: Nzqe. 

f.  CM:  None. 

g.  Record of SV: 12 Dec 89 -  11 Aug 91  Ankara AS  3  (Initial) 

(Discharged from Tinker AFB) 

h.  Awards &  Decs:  NDSM, AFTR. 

i.  Stmt of Sv:  TMS:  (3) Yrs  (3) Mos  ( 4 )   Das 
TAMS:  (2) Yrs (4) MOS (23) Das 

4 .   BASIS ADVANCED  FOR REVIEW:  Appln  (DD Fm 2 9 3 )  dtd 22 Sep 03. 

(Change Discharge to Honorable) 

Issue 1:  M y  undesirable discharge has restricted me form using my GI Bill 

and also from getting a VA loan to purchase a home which I really need.  The GI 
Bill for eductation (sic) to make more money. 

ATCH 
None. 

3 1  Oct 03/cr 

DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  AIR  FORCE 

U S A F   HOSPITAL.  TINKER  ( A f  L C )  

TINKER  AIR  FORCE  BASE. OKLAHOMA  73145-5300 

ru.,lc7, 

Notification Letter 

TO, 

&n 

USAF H O S ~  

8 April 1992 

1.  I  am recommending  your discharge  from the  United States  Air Force for 
 mis sax duct.  The  authority for  this action  is AFR  39-10,  paragraph 5-47b, 
Conduct  Prejudicial to  Good  Order and  Discipline.  If  my recmmmendation is 
approved,  your service will be characterized  as T20norable or General.  I am 
reoommending that your service be characterized as General. 

2.  My reasons for this action are: 

On  or about 25 Jan  92,  at Tinker AE'B, 

OK,  you unlawfully struck two 
persons.in the face,  chest, and other parts of their body  with your fists and 
W s .  On  that same date,  you also wrongfully impeded an investigation into 
the incident by attempting to elude contact with law enforcement officers.  (4s 
a  result,  you received  an  Article 15,  dated  5 Mar  92.  F'unishment was 
reduction in rank to Airman,  effective 5 Mar  92, forfeiture of $200 month ,my 
for two mnths (suspended to 1 Sep 92),  30 days extra duty,  and a reprimand. 
See At&  1. 

W i e s  of the documents to 'ke  forwarded to the separation authority in supLprt 
of  this  recommendatim  are  attached.  The  commander  exercising  S m  
jurisdiction,  or  a  higher  authority,  will  decide  whether  you  will be 
discharged or retained in the Air Force and,  if you are discharged,  how  your 
service will be characterized.  If you are discharged,  you will be ineligible 
for reenlistment. 

3.  Ycu  have the right  to consult counsel.  Militaq  legal counsel has been 
obtained  to assist  you.  I have  made arrangements  for you  to consult Capt 
at Bldg 452,  Tinker AFB,  OK,  on 8 or 9 4 r  92, on a walk-in 
basis between the hours of 0800 and 1000.  You may consult civilian counsel at 
your own expense. 

4. You  have  the  right  to  submit  statements  in  your  am behalf.  Any 
statements  you want  the separation  authority to  consider must  read me by 
13 Apr  92,  unless you request and receive an  extension for good cause shown. 
I will send them to the separation authority. 

5.  If you fail to consult counsel or to subnit statements in your cwn behalf, 
your failure will constitute a waiver of your right to do so. 

COMBAT STRENGTH  THROUGH LOGISTICS 

6.  You  were  scheduled for a  medical  examination  on  6  M x  92,  and  you  should 
have  reported  to the Tinker AEB Hospital,  Physical  Exam  Section,  on that  date 
for the  examination. 

7.  Zpy  personal  information  you  furnish  i n  rebuttal  is covered by  the  Privacy 
Act  Statement  as  explained  i n  AFR  39-10,  attachment  6.  A  copy  of  AFR  39-10  is 
available  for your use  i n  the orderly ram. 

C