AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSN/SSAN
TYPE GEN |X PERSONAL APPEARANCE RECORD REVIEW
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
YES No
x AMERICAN LEGION
MEMBER SITTING HON GEN UOTHC OTHER DENY
xX
xX
xX
xX
xX
ISSUES A92.21 INDEX NUMBER A 67. 1 0
A93.01 1 {ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
A07.20 2 _|APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 {LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4 |BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL’S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING
HEARING DATE CASE NUMBER
09 Dec 2010 FD-2009-00095

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.

 

 

TE mT STR vo OE : ARE

 

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL

SAF/MRBR

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742 ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001

 

 

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 (EF-V2) Previous
CASE NUMBER

_~- (ATR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD-2009-00095

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), wi

AFB on 09 Dec 2010. The following witness also testified on the applicant’ s behalf

relative. The following additional exhibits were submitted at th #5: Applicant’s
Contentions consisting of a statement from the applicant’s counsel, f the American
Legion, and a statement from the applicant, herself. Exhibit #6: Five character or reference statements.

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, the change of reason and authority for
discharge, and change of reenlistment code. 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 and did not take into account
the good things she did while in the service. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as
documented by her contentions, her letters of recommendation, an official list of her authorized awards and
decorations, and other documents contained in the case file. However, the DRB also found that the records
indicated the applicant received an Article 15, five Letters of Reprimand, and two Letters of Counseling for
misconduct all within 15 months of arriving on station. The DRB opined that through these administrative
actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change her negative behavior. The Board opined that the
negative aspects of the applicant’s service outweighed the positive contributions she made in her Air Force
career. It concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reason which was the basis for this case and that
the characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was appropriate.

Issue 2. Applicant contends that she should not be penalized indefinitely for a mistake she made when
young and submits that her post-discharge conduct warrants an upgrade of her discharge. She also opines
that she believes she deserves a second chance despite her discrepancies so that she may serve her country in
the Unites States Army. The DRB recognized the applicant was 20 years of age when the discharge took
place. However, there is no evidence she was immature or did not know right from wrong. The Board
opined the applicant was the same age as the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the

Air Force’s standards of conduct. Likewise, the DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well
and has a good job. However, no inequity or impropriety in her discharge was found in the course of the

hearing. The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant’s discharge was appropriate due to
the misconduct.

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
APPLICATION FOR THE REVIEW OF DISCHARGE OR DISMISSAL Form Approved
FROM THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES OMB No. 0704-0004
(Please read instructions on Pages 3 and 4 BEFORE completing this application.) Expires Aug 31, 2006

The publi: repating burden tor this collection af infurmation is estimated to average 30 minutes pec response, inciuding the ume tor reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering anc iainaaung the data needed, aud completung and cevewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collnetian
aborvformatert, including sugqesuans for teducing the budlen, to Department of Delense, Washington Headquarters Services, Lurectocate tor Intormation Operations and Reports (0704 0004).
1215 Jott n Cavis Highway, Suite 1204, Adinylon, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shail be subjest to any
Renaity for Jailing to carply with a collection of inonuation it 1 does not display a curently valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. RETURN COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE ADDRESS ON BACK OF THIS PAGE.

PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
AUTHORITY: 10 U.S.C. 1553; E.0. 9397.

PRINCIPAL PURPOSE(S}: To apply far a change in the characterization or reason for military discharge issued to an individual.

ROUTINE USE(S): None.

DISCLOSURE: Voluntary; howevar, failure to provide identifying information may impede processing of this application. The request for
Social Security Number is strictly to assure proper identification of the individual and appropriate records.

1. APPLICANT DATA (The person whose discharge is to be reviewed). PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE INFORMATION.

 

 

 

[NAVY _ Ee Neo” —

{ o

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE >
39TH AIR BASE WING (USAFE) ..

 

 
 
 
  
  

MEMORANDUM FOR 39 FSS/FSMPD
FROM: 39 ABW/CC

SUBJECT: Administrative Discha
1. Review. I have carefully consi

to include the advice of my Staff Judge Advocate, pursuant to 30-3206, AGMINISIFALLVE
Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.49., Minor Disciplinary Infractions.

 

2. Findings, I find that:

¢ There is a basis for discharge for minor disciplinary infx ctions under paragraph 5.49.
_ . of AFI 36-3208. The evidence clearly establishes ‘is not
capable of continuing service in the United States Air Force:
° A record during this enlistment, which started on 28 November
; under honorable conditions (general) service characterization.

e a not be given an opportunity for probation and rehabilitation.

3. Action. Accordingly, I approve the discharge action for Minor Disciplinary Infractions,
AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.49, and direct that e separated with a
under honorable conditions (general) discharge, without probation and rehabilitation.

Attachment:

1. Legal Review
2. Case File
d. | Probation and Rehabilitation: AFI 36-3208, paragraph 7.2.7, provides that probation
and rehabilitation may be offered where there is a reasonable expectation for rehabilitation.

6. Discussion:

a. The documented misconduct establishes a legal basis for discharge. There is sufficient
evidence to support the listed misconduct that forms the basis for this discharge.

b. The respondent’s continued misconduct and disregard for military standards and
policies reveal a lack of personal discipline that is not conducive to military life and is
detrimental to the maintenance of good order and discipline in her squadron and the United
States Air Force. Thus, in light of the factors to be considered in AFI 36-3208 , paragraph 6.1.1,

the respondent should be discharged.

c. 39 FSS/CC reoommentis a discharge with a service characterization of under
honorable conditions (general). I concur. The respondent’s continued misconduct shows a lack

of good order arid discipline and a general discharge appropriately characterizes her term of
enlistment. To characterize her service in a more favorable light would not only be misleading
to anyone reviewing her service record, but would also minimize the conduct and contributions

-of the vast majority of Airmen who do their job-professionally.and choose to be law abiding
military members.

d. Further, the respondent has had ample opportunities to correct her behavior and has
continuously refused to do so. The respondent’s chain of command has attempted to rehabilitate
her misconduct through the use of nonjudicial punishment, LORs and LOCs. However, the
respondent failed to reform her conduct. The suitability of persons to serve in the Air Force is
judged on the basis of their conduct and their ability to meet required standards of duty
performance and discipline. The impact of the respondent's continued military service would be
detrimental to the squadron and the United States Air Force.

7. Errors or Irregularities: There are no errors or irregularities that would affect the legal
sufficiency of this discharge action

8. Options: As the Special Court-Martial Convening Authority, you may:
a. Direct the respondent’s retention in the United States Air Force;

b. Direct that the respondent be discharged with an other than honorable (general)
characterization with or without P&R under AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.49;

c. Forward a recommendation for separation with an honorable discharge to the General
Court-Martial Convening Authority, HQ USAFE/CC, IAW AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.56.2.1; or

d. Direct reinitiating the package to convene an administrative discharge board if you
believe that an UOTHC discharge is warranted. The commander’s decision to characterize the
respondent’s service as under honorable conditions (general) is proper considering the
respondent’s repeated and pervasive misconduct. .
"g. On 11 August 2007, a commissioned officer performing “Byes On” duty observed the
respondent in an intoxicated state and saw her pull down her pants and urinate in public. For this
misconduct, she received a LOR dated 15 Aug 07.

h. On8 June 2007, the respondent was scheduled to report for duty at 0430 but did not
show up until 0645. For this misconduct, she received a LOR dated 8 June 2007.

i. On 22 May 2007, the respondent was scheduled to report for duty at 0430 but did not
show up until 0710. For this misconduct, she received a LOR dated 22 May 2007.

4, Respondent’s Military Record: The respondent has been on continuous active duty since
28 November 2006. Since she has less than 20 months of total active military service, an

Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) has not been completed on het: The respondent is entitled to
wear the National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal,
Global War on Terrorism Service Medal and the Air Force Training Ribbon.

5. Regulatory Guidance:

a. Basis for Discharge: IAW AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.49, Misconduct: Minor
Disciplinary Infractions, an Airman who has failed to. comply with nonpunitive regulations or -
minor offenses under the UCMJ is subject to discharge. Infractions of this type typically result
in informal counseling (reduced to writing), formal counseling (LOC, LOR), or nonjudicial

punishment imposed under Article 15, UCMJ.

b. Should Respondent be Discharged): IAW AFI 36-3208, paragraph 6.1.1, when a
discharge is not mandatory, the member’s potential for future useful service must be considered,
including how the respondent’s retention might affect military discipline, good order, and
morale; whether the circumstances that are the basis of the discharge action will continue or

recur; and the respondent’s potential for advancement and leadership.

c. Characterization of Discharge: AFI 36-3208, Table 1.3, indicates that for
misconduct cases, the authorized characterizations of discharge are: (1) honorable; (2) under
honorable conditions (general); or (3) under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC). An
honorable discharge should be reserved for those whose service is “so meritorious that any other
characterization would be inappropriate.” A general discharge should be imposed when
“significant negative aspects of the Airman’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh the
positive aspects of the Airman’s military record.” For a case processed using notification
procedures, as this one is, only an honorable or a general discharge is authorized. A
recommendation must be forwarded to the General Court Martial Convening Authority
(GCMCA), HQ USAFE/CC for an honorable discharge when the basis is Minor Disciplinary
Infractions. An UOTHC should be reserved for those “whose pattern of behavior or one or more
acts or omissions constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of airmen.” In
order to impose an UOTHC discharge, a member must be given the right to an administrative

discharge board. If you believe an UOTHC discharge 1s appropriate, you have the option of
convening an administrative discharge board.
9. Recommendation: I recommend you direct that the respondent be discharged for a pattern of
misconduct with an under honorable conditions (general) service characterization without an
offer for probation and rehabilitation.