NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOARD HEARING RECORD 

L 

rYPE  GEN 

I x IPERSONAL 
1 NAML Oh COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION 

RECORD REVIEW 

APPEARANCE 

'-..-..-..-..-..-J 

I 

I 

C""" 

YES 

-1 

AMERICAN  LEGION 

I 

I 

MEMBER SITTING 

J 

ISSUES 

A94.06 
A92.35 

INDEX NUMBER 

A67.30 

1 

A1 C 
I 

I 

I 

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANlZATlON OF COUNSEL 

1  1608 K ST NW WASHINGTON DC 20006 

YOTG OF ' W E  BOARD 

GEN 

I  U O ~  116-[  01 11P,l< 

A 

I 

1 ) t N Y  

X 

X 

I 

HON 

X*+ 

X*+ 

X*+ 

EXHIBITS SLlBMlTTED TO THE BOARD 

I  ORDER APPOINTING THE BOAR11 

I  I 
2  1  AI'I'I.ICA'I  I O N  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE 
3  1  LEI"1'EK OF NO'I'IPICA'I'ION 
BRIEF OF PERSONNF,L P11,l: 

IIEARINC DATE 

CASE NUMBER 

PERSONAL APPEARANCE 

22 May 2007 
APPLILANT'b ISSLE AhD THE BOARD S DECISlOhU RATIONAL ARE DlbLLSSED Oh I H t  4 1'1  ACHkI,  AIK  tOK(  b  I)IS(  HAKGC KF.\ IFU HOARD O K  lSlOh \I  RATIO\AI  r 

FD-2006-00426 

I 

I 

Case heard  in Washington,  D.C. 

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board. 

Names and votes will  be  made available to the applicant at the applicant's  request. 

* CHANGE RE CODE 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - n - - - - 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - yRITY 
+ CHANGE REASON AND AUTHORITY TO SECRETARIAL AUT 

- - - - - - - - - -- , 

SAFIMRBR 
550 C STREET WEST, SIJlTE 40 
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78 150-4742 

FROM: 

1 

SECRETARY OFI'HE AIR FORCE PF.I(SONNE1.  COliNClL 
AIR FORCE DIS(:HAR(;E  REYIEW BOARD 
1535 COhlMAND DR. EE WINC.3RD  FLOOR 
ANDREWS AFR,  hlD 20761-7001 

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 

(EF-V2) 

Previous edition will be used 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE 

I 

CASE NUMBER 

FD-2006-00426 

GENERAL:  The  applicant  appeals  for  upgrade  of  discharge  to  honorable,  to  change  the  reason  and 
authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code. 

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) with his representative,  Mr. 
------------- 
j  of the American Legion, at Andrews AFB on 22 May 2007.  The following witness also testified 
-.-..-.-..-.. 
on the applicant's behalf:  Mr. RE (his father). 

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: 

Exhibit #5:  American Legion Statement with Attachments 

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

FINDINGS:  The Board grants the requested relief. 

The  Board  finds  that  neither  the  evidence  of  record  nor  that  provided  by  applicant  substantiates  an 
impropriety  that  would  justify  a  change  of  discharge.  However,  based  upon  the  record  and  evidence 
provided  by  applicant, the  Board  finds the  applicant's  character of discharge  and  reason  and  authority  for 
discharge to be inequitable. 

Issue:  Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The applicant was 
discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge for Misconduct:  Commission of a 
Serious Offense.  This discharge was based on the applicant being charged with misdemeanor offenses in 
civilian criminal court relating to domestic violence.  The Discharge Review Board determined that the 
applicant's  discharge was too harsh based on the isolated and relatively minor incident which formed the 
basis for discharge.  While the Discharge Review Board in no way condones domestic violence, based on the 
evidence presented the Board determined that there were a number of mitigating factors involved in the 
incident in question.  Both the applicant and his ex-wife were young and got married when the applicant's 
ex-wife became pregnant.  Following the birth of the applicant's son, the evidence suggests the applicant's 
ex-wife experienced some difficulties with motherhood and had mood swings.  The applicant testified that 
he would frequently be up during the night to feed and care for his newborn son and would get little sleep 
during the day.  According to the police report of the incident, when the applicant's son was approximately 
four weeks old, the applicant and his wife engaged in an argument and his wife told the applicant she was 
leaving the home with their son.  The applicant testified that his wife had been out the previous night due to 
a fight she'd had with a neighbor and came home the morning of the incident in an angry and confrontational 
mood.  He testified that his wife told him she was leaving with the baby for 30 days.  The applicant testified 
that he attempted to block his wife's access into their son's room as he felt she was in no condition to care 
for the baby.  He testified that she scratched his arm and he then shoved her in what he believed to be the 
chestlshoulder area.  He testified that his wife then called a supervisor from work who then called the local 
police who arrested the applicant.  Contrary to the information contained in the police report, the applicant 
testified that at no time did he put his hands around his wife's neck or grab her in a "bear hug."  The 
applicant had an otherwise good record with no record of disciplinary action prior to this incident and he had 
received a "5"  on his prior performance report.  Based on the applicant's  overall service record, his lack of 
previous disciplinary action, and the relatively minor and mutual nature of the domestic violence incident, 
the Discharge Review Board determined that the discharge action was too harsh.  The Board felt that the 
applicant's  treatment was inequitable as other Airmen in this situation are typically allowed to remain in the 
service. 

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. 

However,  in  view  of  the  foregoing  findings,  the  Board  further  concludes  that  the  overall  quality  of 
applicant's  service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge and the reason for the discharge is 
more  accurately  described  as  Secretarial  Authority.  The  applicant's  characterization  and  reason  for 
discharge should be changed to Honorable and Secretarial Authority and his RE Code should be changed to 
3K under the provisions of Title  10, USC  1553. 

Attachment: 
Examiner's Brief 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 

ANDREWS  AFB,  MD 

(Former AlC)  (HGH A1C) 

1.  MATTER UNDER REVIEW:  Appl rec'd  a GEN Disch fr USAF Travis AFB, CA on 16 Mar 
05 UP AFI 36-3208, para 5.52,3 (Misconduct -  Commission of a Serious Offense - 
Other Serious Offenses).  Appeals for Honorable Discharge. 

2.  BACKGROUND: 

a. DOB: 8 Jun 83.  Enlmt Age:  18 9/12.  Disch Age: 21 9/12. Educ: HS DIPL. 

AFQT: N/A.  A-51,  E-49,  G-52,  M-66. PAFSC: 2A551J -  Aerospace Maintenance 
Journeyman.  DAS: 21 Dec 02. 

b .   Prior Sv:  (1) AFRes 29 Mar 02 -  08 Jul 02  (3 months  10 days) (Inactive). 

3.  SERVICE UNDER REVIEW: 

a.  Enlisted as AB 9 Jul 02 for 6 years. Svd: 02 Yrs 08 Mo 08 Das, of which 

AMS is 02 Yrs 08 Mos 04 Days  (excludes 4 days lost time). 

b.  Grade Status:  A1C  -  23 Aug  02 

c.  Time Lost:  19 Nov  04 -  22 Nov 04  (4 days) 

d.  Art  15's:  None. 

e.  Additional: Superior Court Documents. 

Police Report. 

f.  CM:  None. 

g.  Record of SV: 09 Jul 02 -  15 Jan 04  Travis AFB  5  (HAF DIR) 

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

i.  Stmt of Sv:  TMS:  (02) Yrs  (11) Mos  (18) Das 
TAMS:  (02) Yrs  (08) Mos  (04) Das 

4.  BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW:  Appln  (DD Fm 293) dtd 30 Oct 06. 

(Change Discharge to Honorable) 

Issue 1:  The Discharge was based on civiliaian  (sic) matters not military 

performance. 

ATCH 
1,  E n l i s t e d   Performance  R e p o r t .  
2 .   C e r t i f i c a t e   o f   A p p r e c i a t i o n .  
3 .   L e t t e r   from  Family  Advocacy. 
4 .  

Two  c h a r a c t e r   r e f e r e n c e s .  

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR  FORCE 

60TH EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE SQUADRON 

TRAVIS AFB, CALIFORNIA 94535 

FEB  2 4  2005 

MEMORANDUM FOR  A 1 C: 

. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - a  

FROM:  60 EMSICC 

SUBJECT:  Notification Memorandum 

1.  I am recommending your discharge from the United States Air Force for Misconduct: 
Commission of a Serious Offense, Other Serious Offenses.  The authority for this action is AFPD 
36-32 and AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.52.3.  If my recommendation is approved, your sepice will be 
characterized as an Under Honorable Conditions (General) Discharge. I am recommending that 
your service be characterized as an Under Honorable Conditions (General) Discharge, 

2.  My reason for this action is: 

On or about 15 Jun 04, you were charged with three counts of misdemeanor offenses, in 
violation of Section 273.5(a) (Corporal Injury to Spouse/Cohabitant/Child's Parent), Section 
243(e)(1) (Battery) and Section 236 (False Imprisonment) of the Penal Code of the State of 
California, County of Solano.  Copies of the documents to be forwarded to the separation 
authority in support of this recommendation are atuched.  The commander exercising SPCM 
jurisdiction or higher authority will decide whether you will be discharged or retained in the 
United States Air Force and, if you are discharged, how your service will be characterized. If 
you are discharged, you will be ineligible for reenlistment in the Air Force and any special pay, 
bonus, or education assistance funds may be subject to recoupment. The separation authority 
will make the findings and recommendations required under  10 U.S.C.  Section 2005(g). 

3.  You have the right to consult counsel.  Military legal - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,  
have made an appointment for you to consult Captain; 
Bldg 381, on a k b 6  , at  Oqm 
own expense. 

:at 540 Airlift Drive 
hours.  You may consult civilian counsel at your 

counsel has been obtained to assist you.  I 

4.  You have the right to submit statements in your own be  alf.  Any statements you want the 
separation authority to consider must reach me by 
receive an extension for good cause shown.  I will send them to the separation authority. 

1 La 0 <  unless you request and 

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

6. You have been scheduled for a medical examination, You must report to David Grant Medical 
Center, 101 Bodin Circle on  2 5 F&, 
hours for the examination-Report to 
Force Health Management. 

at  0 7 3 0  

7.  Any personal information you furnish in rebuttal is covered by the Privacy Act of  1974.  A copy 
of AFI 36-3208 is available for your use at Unit Orderly Room. 

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

' . . - . . - . . - . . - . . - . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - l  

Commander 

Attachments: 
1.  Superior Court Documents (Faxed 14 Feb 05) 
2.  Police Report 

w 

a 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS 60TH AIR MOBILITY WING (AMC) 

MAR  1 0 2005 

MEMORANDUM FOR 60 AMWICC 

FROM:  60 AMWIJA 

5 10 Mulheron Street 
Travis AFB CA  94535-2406 

SUBJECT:  Administrative Discharge Under AFI 36-3208, Airman First Class! 
j 60th Eyuipment Maintenance Squadron 

I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  

C - - - - - - - - - - - - a  

C-....-.-..-.-....------------. 

1.  Introduction: 

a.  This action is legally sufficient.  On 24 Feb 05, the 60 EMSICC initiated discharge action 
against Airman First Class Thomas P. Eierdam (Respondent) pursuant to AFPD 36-32, Military 
Retirements and Separations, and AFT  36-3208, Administrative Separatiorz of  Aimen, chapter 5, 
paragraph 5.52.3, Misconduct, Commission of a Serious Offense, Other Serious Offenses.  The 
60 EMSICC recommended an under honorable conditions (general) service characterization 
without probation and rehabilitation, and the 60 MXGICC concurred.  This 21-year-old 
respondent has 31 months of active milit;iry service.  He has been awarded the Air Force 
Training Ribbon, National Defense Service Medal and Air Force Outstanding Unit Award.  He 
has received two EPRs with overall ratings of "5,"  and "2" (referral).  A detailed summary of his 
personal data is contained in paragraph 2 of the Commander's Recommendation for Discharge 
memorandum, dated 28 Feb 05. 

b.  After consulting defense counsel, Respondent asks to be discharged with an honorable 

service characterization.  Respondent acknowledges his mistakes, takes full responsibility for his 
actions, and contends that his actions did not affect his Air Force duties.  Furthermore, 
Respondent contends that an honorable service characterization will enable him to obtain a good 
job to support his family. 

2.  Basis for Discharge: 

a.  On or about 11 Jun 04, Respondent did commit a misdemeanor namely Corporal Injury to 
SpouselCohabitant/Child's Parent, in violation of Section 273.5(a) of the Penal Code of the State 
of  California, in that Respondent did willfully and unlawfully inflict corporal injury resulting in a 
traumatic condition upon his spouse. 

b.  On or about 11 Jun 04, Respondent  did commit a misdemeanor namely Battery in 

violation of Section 243(e)(l) of the Penal Code of the State of  California, in that Respondent did 
willfully and unlawfully use force and violence upon his spouse. 

c.  On or about 11 Jun 04, Respondent  did commit a misdemeanor namely False 

Imprisonment, in violation of Section 236 of the Penal Code of the State of California, in that 
Respondent did unlawfully violate the personal liberty of  his spouse. 
For the misconduct in subparagraphs 2a, 2b and 2c, Respondent's imposition of sentence was 
suspended pending successful completion of three years reporting probation, $100.00 fine, 
$25.00 a month probation fee, obey all laws and all orders of the court, report all incidents, 
citations, or violations of law, within 5 days to the probation officer, not to have possession, 
custody, or control of any firearms or dangerous I deadly weapons I ammunition, of any lund of 
at any time, enroll and successfully complete a Domestic Violence Program directed by the court 
and consisting of 52 weeks in duration and complete it by 24 May 05, as evidenced by Minute 
Order & Order of Probation, dated 24 Nov 04. 

3.  Appropriateness of Discharge:  Pursuant to AFI 36-3208, chapter 5, paragraph 5.52, 
Airmen are subject to discharge for misconduct based on the commission of a serious offense if a 
punitive discharge would be authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the 
Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM).  Furthermore, according to AFI 36-3208, chapter 5, 
paragraph 5.52.3 Misconduct, Commission of a Serious Offense, Other Serious Offenses, tends 
to disrupt good order, discipline, or morale within the military community.  It also usually 
involves behavior that tends to cause dissent, disruption, or a deterioration of mission 
effectiveness.  If  you are convinced, based on Respondent's aforementioned behavior, there is a 
basis for discharge, you may then look at his entire military record to decide whether it is 
appropriate to discharge him at this time.  Given Respondent's misconduct, there are sufficient 
grounds for discharge and, in light of  his record as a whole, it is appropriate to discharge him at 
this time. 

4.  Characterization of  Service: 

a.  Pursuant to AFI 36-3208, chapter 5, paragraph 5.46, Airmen in the active military service 
are required to maintain, both on and off duty, the high standards of personal conduct set for Air 
Force members.  An honorable characterization is reserved for those airmen whose service has 
met Air Force standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty and their service has 
been so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate (para 1.18). 
Respondent was tried, convicted, and punished for criminal behavior; therefore, Respondent does 
not deserve to be awarded an honorable discharge certificate. 

b.  AFI 36-3208 instructs that, in  most cases, discharges initiated under paragraph 5.52 

should be characterized as UOTHC.  Paragraph 1.21.3 cautions, however, that in those cases 
where the sole basis for discharge is a serious offense that resulted in a court-martial conviction 
but no punitive discharge, Secretary Of the Air Force (SECAF) approval is necessary for a 
UOTHC discharge characterization.  Respondent's case fits squarely within the characterization 
limitations of this paragraph. 

c.  A general discharge, under honorable conditions, is appropriate if  an airman's service has 
been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the airman's conduct or performance 
of duty outweigh positive aspects of  the airman's military record.  Taking into consideration 
Respondent's service record, misconduct, age, time in service, and, most importantly, the 
limitations imposed by AFI 36-3208, paragraph  1.21, a general discharge is appropriate. 

Respondent's misconduct outweighs the positive aspects of  his service record.  The 60 EMSICC 
and the 60 MXGICC recommend a general service characterization.  Given Respondent's 
misconduct and his time spent in service, I believe a general service characterization is the most 
appropriate.  Therefore, I concur with both commanders'  recommendation for a general 
discharge. 

5.  Probation and Rehabilitation (P&R): P&R  is clearly inappropriate in this case.  According 
to A H  36-3208, chapter 5, paragraph 5.2, Airmen should have an opportunity to overcome their 
deficiencies before discharge action is initiated.  A commander's efforts to rehabilitate an 
Airman may include formal or informal counseling, control roster action, punishment under 
Article  15, UCMJ, a change in duty assignment, demotion, additional training or duty, retraining, 
or other administrative action.  Pursuant to AFI 36-3208, chapter 7, paragraph 7.3, P&R should 
be offered, when it is reasonably possible to do so, to those Airmen (a) who have demonstrated a 
potential to serve satisfactorily, (b) who have the capacity to be rehabilitated for continued 
military service or for completion of the current enlistment, and (c) whose retention on active 
duty in a probationary status is consistent with the maintenance of good order and discipline in 
the Air Force.  Based on the seriousness of Respondent's  misconduct, his retention on active duty 
is not consistent with the maintenance of good order and discipline in the Air Force. 

6.  Optlons:  Pursuant to AFI 36-3208, chapter 5, paragraph 5.56, the Special Court-Martial 
Convening Authority (SPCMCA) personally approves or disapproves recommendations for any 
discharges processed by notification under AFI 36-3208, chapter 6, section B, and resulting in a 
general discharge under section H.  As SPCMCA, your options are to 

a.  direct that this action be withdrawn and retain Respondent; 

b.  discharge Respondent with a general discharge, with or without P&R; 

c.  forward the case to the 18 AFICC with a recommendation for an honorable discharge, 

with or without P&R. 

7.  Recommendation:  Discharge Respondent with a general discharge, without P&R, by 
signing the memorandum at attachment 1. 

................................................................ 

Staff Judge Advocate 

Attachments: 
1.  Proposed Memorandum 
2.  Barment Memorandum 
3.  Case File (A 1C Eierdam)