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

1

s 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD 

GRADE 

AFSNlSSAN 

I 
TYPE GEN 

I 

I 

PERSONAL APPEARANCE 

I 

SRA 
/ 

I  x 

RECORDREVIEW 

1 

1 

MEMBER SITTING 

I 

HON 

GEN 

I  UOTHC 

I  OTHER 

I  DENY 

I 

I 

I 

INDEX NUMBER 

A64.00 

HEARING DATE 

30 Jul2004 

CASE NUMBER 

FD-2004-00071 

Case heard at Washington, D.C. 

ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD 
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE 

1 - 
2 
3  1  LETTER OF NOTIFlCATION 
4  /  BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE 

- 

-  - 

- 

COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD 
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF 
PERSONAL APPEARANCE 

I  TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE 

/ 

I 

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

TO: 

SAFMRBR 
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742 

I  FROM: 
I 

SECRETARY OF M E  AIR  FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIl. 
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 
1535 COMMAND DR. EE WING, 3RD FLOOR 
ANDREWS AYB, MD 20762-7002 

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 

(EF-V2) 

Previous edition will be used 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE 

CASE NUMBER 

FD-2004-00071 

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) 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  that  neither  the  evidence  of  record  nor  that  provided  by  the  applicant  substantiates  an 
inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge. 

ISSUES: 

Issue 1.  Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh; he feels it was based on a 
single isolated incident.  The records indicated the applicant received two Letters of Reprimand, 9 months 
apart, both for civilian convictions based on separate and distinct off-base criminal behavior.  He also had an 
Unfavorable Information File and was placed on the Control Roster.  As a result of the first conviction, for 
disorderly conduct, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and menacing, member was fined $250.00, 
plus $250.00 court costs, with a 30-day suspended jail  sentence, and a separate one year jail  sentence, also 
suspended for 2 years on good behavior.  His second conviction for theft from an off-base sporting goods 
store resulted in suspended 3-year supervised probation sentence.  Additionally, member had written eight 
dishonored checks and was sent to budget counseling twice.  While these matters were not used as a basis for 
discharge, they were cited as additional derogatory data and could be used for characterization of service. 
The DRB opined that through the unit's  administrative actions, and civilian court convictions, applicant had 
ample opportunities to change his negative behavior and was either unwilling or unable to do so.  The Board 
concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.  The 
characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate. 

Issue 2.  Applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for a mistake he made when young. 
The DRB nevertheless concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due 
to the misconduct that occurred during his period of service.  While the Board is sympathetic to the negative 
impact of a general discharge, this is not a reason that suggests an inequity or impropriety that would warrant 
an 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 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 

ANDREWS AFB,  MD 

(Former SrA) (HGH SrA) 

1.  MATTER UNDER REVIEW:  Appl recfd a GEN Disch fr Minot AFB, ND on 26 May 89 UP 
AFR 39-10, para 5-47a (Pattern of Misconduct -  Discreditable Involvement With 
Civil Authorities).  Appeals for Honorable Discharge. 

2.  BACKGROUND: 

a. DOB: 21 Dec 64. Enlmt Age: 20 11/12.  Disch Age: 24 5/12. Educ: HS DIPL. 

AFQT: N/A.  A-77,  E-60,  G-66,  M-88. PAFSC: 45750B -  Strategic Aircraft 
Maintenance Specialist. DAS: 23 Apr 86. 

b.  Prior Sv: (1) AFRes 9 Dec 85 -  25 Dec 85  (17 days) (Inactive). 

3.  SERVICE UNDER REVIEW: 

a.  Enlisted as AB  26 Dec 85 for 6 yrs. Svd: 3 Yrs 1 Mo 5 Das, all AMS. 

b.  Grade Status:  SrA -  11 Jun 88 

A1C -  (APR Indicates): 26 Dec 85-25 Dec 86 

c.  Time Lost:  None. 

I 

d.  Art  15's:  None. 

e.  Additional: LOR, 13 MAY 89 -  Civilian conviction for theft of property. 

LOR, 23 AUG 88 -  Civilian conviction for disorderly 

conduct, contributing to the delinquency 
of a minor, and menacing. 

f.  CM:  None. 

g.  Record of SV: 26 Dec 85 -  25 Dec 86  ~ i n o t  AFB  9  (Annual) 
26 Dec 86 -  25 Dec 87  Minot AFB  9  (Annual) 
26 Dec 87 -  25 Dec 88  Minot AFB  8  (Annual) 

h.  Awards &  Decs:  AFTR, AFOUA, AFGCM 

i.  Stmt of Sv:  TMS: (3) Yrs  (5) Mos  (18) Das 

TAMS: (3) Yrs  (5) Mos  (1) Das 

4.  BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW:  Appln  (DD Fm 293) dtd 19 Feb 04. 

(Change Discharge to Honorable) 

Issue 1:  My discharge was inequitable because it was based on a single 

isolated incident.  And marking or writing General under honorable conditions on 

a job or credit application makes a huge black mark.  Please, I have suffered 
enough. 

ATCH 
None 

D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E A I R F O R C E  

HEADQUARTERS 5TH  BOMBARDMENT  WING  (SAC) 

MINOT A I R   FORCE BASE,  ND 58705 

sueJEcT:Letter  of  N o t i f i c a t i o n  

1.  I am  recommending  your  discharge  from  t h e   United  States  A i r   Force  f o r  a 
p a t t e r n   of  misconduct,  more  s p e c i f i c a l l y ,   d i s c r e d i t a b l e   involvement  w i t h  
c i v i l  a u t h o r i t i e s .   The  a u t t ? o r i t y  iclr  t h i s   a c t i o n   i s  f2FF.I  39-lC?,  paragraph 
5-47a. 
l   be  characterized 
as honorable  o r   general.  I am  recommending  t h a t   your  service  be  characterized 
as  general. 

I f  my  recommendation  i s  approved,  your  discharge  w i

l

2.  My  reasons  f o r   t h i s  a c t i o n   are: 

a.  Un  o r   about  1B  May  i983,  you  were  convicted  of  t h e f t   o f   property  i n  

Ward  County,  North  Dakota,  a f t e r   pleading  g u i l t y   t o  t h a t   offense.  For  t h i s  
conviction  you  received  a  L e t t e r   o i  Reprimand  on  13  t?ay  1989. 

b.  On  or  about  I& J u l y   1988,  a t   F o r t   Stevenson  State  Park,  McClean 
County,  North  Dakota,  you  conducted  y o u r s e l i   i n  a  d i s o r d e r l y   manner,  you 
contributed  t c  t h e   deiinquency  of  a  minor,  and  t e r r o r i z e d   park  patrons.  For 
these  offenses  you  were  convicted  by  c i v i l   a u t h s r i  t i e s  i n  KcClean  County, 
Korth  Dakota. 
lT3S  and  an  unfavorable  information  f i l e  was  opened  i n  your  name  on  t h a t   same 
date. 

I n  addition,  you  received  a  L e t t e r   of  Eeprimand  on  23  August 

Copies  o i   t h e   documents  t o  be  forwarded  t o  t h e   separation  a u t h o r i t y   i n  
support  of  t h i s -  kecommendation  are  attached.  The  Commander  exercising  SPCM 
j u r i s d i c t i o n   (57  AD/CC)  o r   a  higher  a u t h o r i t y   w i
discharged  o r   r e t a i n e d   i n  t h e   A i r   Force. 
i n e l i g i b l e  f o r   reenlistment  i n  t h e   A i r   Force. 

l   decide  whether  you w i
l

I f  you  a r e   discharged,  you  w i

l
l   be 

l

l   be 

3.  You  have  t h e   r i g h t   t o  consult  counsel.  M i l i t a r y  l e g a l   counsel  has  been 
obtained  t o  a s s i s t   you.  I have  made  an  appointment  f o r   you  t o  consult 
Ca 
-- 
counsel  a t   your  OIW 

t h e   area  Defense  Counsel,  a t   her  o f f i c e ,   Bldg  475,  Room  3&U,  on 
---------- 1983  a t  -15_02-- hours.  You  nay  consuit  c i v i l i a n  

e;:pense. 

- 

You have  t h e  r i g h t  t o  submit  statements  i n  your  own  behalf.  Any  zitatements 
4. 
you  want  t h e   separation  a u t h o r i t y   t o  consider  ml-1st  reach  me  by  -f(Z!b hours  on 
->5-mL@/---- 1989  unless  you  request  and  r e c e i v e   an  extension  f o r   good  cause 
shown. 

l   send  them  ta t h e   separation  a u t h o r i t y .  

I  w i

l

5.  If you  f a i  1  t o  c o ~ s u l  t counsel  or  t a  submit  statements  i n  yocrr  own  behalf, 
your  + a i l u r e  w i

l  c o n s t i t u t e  a  waiver  o+  your  r i g h t   t o  do  so. 

l

5.  You  were  p r e v i u u s l  y  scheduied  f o r   a  medical  examination  on  17  May  1985'. 

P e a c e . .  . . i s  o u r P r o f e s s i o n  

7.  Any personal information you furnish in rebuttal is covered by  the Privacy 
Act Statement as explained in AFR 39-18, attachment 6.  A copy of AFR 39-10 is 
available for your use in the Orderly Room. 

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

01 , USAF 

3 Atch 
1.  Supporting Documents for the 

Reasons for Discharge 

2.  Documents Containing Derogatory 
Information Which are not Listed 
in Letter of Notification 

3.  Airman's Receipt of Letter of 

Notification