AIR FORCE DISCIIARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

      

 

 

 

   
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSN/SSAN
TYPE GEN |X PERSONAL APPEARANCE RECORD REVIEW
eumeey NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL a
YES
eee mneennermesnannanine ene emo TORR OME ROARD
ee cy
HON GEN UOTHC OTHER DENY
x*+
xet
X*t
NF
X*+
ISSUES 4g 4.95 INDEX NUMBER A67.10 So ‘EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE,BOARD
A02.03 1 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD _
2 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 |LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4 |BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
wpe aa
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAI. APPEARANCE HEARING
HEARING DATE CASE NUMBER
01 Jul 2010 FD-2.009-00163

 

 

 

 

(APPLICANT S ISSUE AND THE HOARD § DECISIONAL RATIONALE ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORGE DISCHARGE REVIEW HOARD DECISIONAL, RATTONALE: A

 

Case heard in Washington, D.C.
Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

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

*Reason and Authority
+Reenlistment Code

 

 

 

 

 

ve .
INDORSEMENT DATED TAZOTU: o
+O: FROM: ‘
SAE/MRBR SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
te sons cas ATR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SITE 40 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742 ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7101
AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 (EF-V2) Previous
CASE NUMBER

   
 

    
 
    
     
  
      
    
  

ATR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD-2009-00163

  

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), without counsel, at
Andrews AFB on 01 Jul 2010.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing:

Exhibit #5: Applicant’s Contentions
Exhibit #6: Character reference letter

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

FINDING: The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge. Change of reason and authority for discharge
and change of reenlistment code are 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. The applicant received
three Article 15s for misconduct from three different bases over the course of four years for the following
misconduct: wearing a tongue ring in uniform; failure to get adequate rest before working with live
munitions; failure to obey a lawful order (x2) for being at a bar outside the gate of Osan AB, Republic of
Korea, after curfew and disobeying the order of a Security Forces member to leave the establishment; failure
to go to his appointed place of duty on divers occasions; disrespect to a senior NCO; and sleeping while on
duty. The applicant disputed several of the offenses and minimized others. He admitted to wearing the
tongue ring in uniform. Regarding the failure to get adequate sleep before loading munitions, the applicant
stated that his friend called him at approximately 0100 to 0200 to ask for a ride back to Cannon AFB, New
Mexico, after he had been drinking. He made the decision to leave his home to pick his friend up but then
became caught up in a base urinalysis sweep. This, plus another series of events beyond the applicant’s
control, caused him to not get the required rest he needed to perform the mission, which involved being on
alert for a Presidential support mission. While the DRB sympathized with the applicant’s decision to pick
his friend up, based on the seriousness of the applicant’s mission the next morning, the DRB determined he
should have exercised better judgment than to jeopardize his rest requirements. The applicant claimed he
was unaware that he was violating curfew requirements by remaining at the bar outside of Osan AB after
curfew hours. The DRB found this unlikely as he had been briefed regarding curfew requirements upon
arrival to Osan AB and had completed almost his full tour at Osan AB. Additionally, he admitted that he
heard a Security Forces sergeant order all military members to leave the bar and that he disobeyed this order.
The applicant admitted to being late to work while stationed at Moody AFB, Georgia, on two occasions, but
blamed his malfunctioning car. He also admitted to missing a medical appointment. The applicant disputed
that he had been disrespectful to a senior NCO and stated that this event was misperceived by the senior
NCO. He admitted to briefly falling asleep while on duty but stated that his Zoloft medication made him
sleepy. The DRB opined that while the applicant may not have intentionally set out to engage in misconduct
in all instances, his repeated poor judgment and inability to foresee the consequences of his actions resulted
in appropriate punishments. The Board concluded that the negative aspects of the applicant’s service
outweighed the positive contributions he made in his Air Force career. The characterization of the discharge
received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

Issue 2, While not raised by the applicant, a review of the applicant’s file shows he was board-entitled at the
time he was notified of his administrative discharge. AFI 36-3208, paragraph 6.2.2.2, states that a military
member is entitled to a discharge board if he has six years or more total active and inactive military service
at the time the discharge processing starts. This paragraph notes that service in the delayed enlistment
program is included in calculating the six years. The applicant entered the delayed enlistment program on
27 September 2001 and was notified of his discharge on 1 November 2007; therefore, he should have been
notified of his eligibility to have his case heard before an administrative discharge board. DoDI 1332.28,
Enclosure 4, paragraph E.4.2.1, et al, states that a discharge shall be deemed proper unless it is determined
that an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion exists associated with the discharge at the time of issuance;
and that the rights of the applicant were prejudiced thereby (such error shall constitute prejudicial error if
there is substantial doubt that the discharge would have remained the same if the error had not been made).
In this case, the DRB determined that the applicant was not prejudiced by the lack of a board hearing as
there was not substantial doubt that a discharge board would have recommended the applicant’s discharge
with a general service characterization. For this reason, the DRB found no impropriety.

CONCLUSION: 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 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 and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment:
Examiner's Brief