AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD

NAME Ofi SERV ICE M EMBER (LAST, FI RST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRA il:	AFSN/SSAN

X  PERSONAL APPEARANCE	RECORD  REVIEW

YES	NO
x

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANl7A TION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING

HON	GEN

VOTE OJ' THE llOARD

UOTHC

OTllF;

DENY
x x x x x

ISSUES
AOt.03, 01.13, 93.01, 93.15,
93.33, 94.05, 94.1 I

HEARING DATE
20 MAR 03

INDEX NUMBER
A67.10

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0099

EXHIBITS SUBMITTEJl TO nu:BOARD
1	ORDER APPOINTING TIIE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCH	GE
3	LETTER  OF NOTIFICATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO TH E BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXl-!J81TS SURMITTED AT Tl	OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERAN	HEARING
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSElJ ON THE ATTACHED AJR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATION

REMARKS

Case heard at Washington, DC.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and OF the right to submit an application to the A FBCMR.

TO:

-	--

-----

FROM:

DATE:

MAR 03

SAF/MIBR
550 C STR EET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNE    OUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3Ro FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will b  used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD UECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

		
GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and for a change in the and the reason and authority for discharge.

The applicant's  case was considered  by the Discharge  Review Board  (ORB), at Andrews  AFB
March 20, 2003.  The applicant appeared before the ORB but did not have counsel.

The attached brief contains available perti nent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the FINDINGS:   The ORB denies the requested relief.
The ORB finds that the evidence of record and that provided by the applicant does not substantiat1 inequity or an impropriety that would justify an upgrade of the discharge and a change to the RE C reason and authority for the discharge.	RE Code

MD, on scharge.

an
>de and	
ISSUES:   The  applicant  was  discharged  with  a general  service characterization  from the Air    orce for
misconduct or, more specifically, minor disciplinary infractions. He had three records of idividual counseling, all for failure to two AF  Forms 1048 (traffic ticket) for speeding on base; t  o verbal counselings, one for failure to and the other for failure to pay a just debt; two letters of reprima d, one of which concerned theft of government property and the other involved intentionally mishan ling and damaging full mobility bags while loading an aircraft: during an exercise; an Article 15 for u ing false pretenses to get into the base club without paying the entrance fee; and four correctional cust1 :ly forms evidencing numerous failures to conform to the rules and requirements of correctional  cust<  ly.  The applicant complained because he was separated after completing the entire  30-day correction<  custody period and because he felt the discharge was too harsh a sanction for the minor misconduct in which he engaged. He also alleged racial discrimination and a personality conflict with his first ser ieant and supervisor.

CONCLUSIONS: The ORB concludes that the discharge was consistent with the substa tive  and procedural requirements of the discharge regulation and was not an abuse of discretion by the lischarge authority.

In its simplest terms, the applicant failed to carry his burden of proof. He generally admitted e1 agmg m much of his misconduct. In particular, he acknowledged failing at various times to cor oly with correctional custody rules, he accepted responsibi lity for the speeding tickets and the failures to g . But, as for his other misconduct-the more serious incidents-he either minimized his involvement 1r denied committing the misconduct. His attempt to deflect responsibility for his conduct was marked by estimony that was generally inconsistent, improbable, and/or incredible.

For example, he initially claimed that his attempt to avoid paying the entrance fee for the club w, s nothing more than a joke and that he intended to pay the fee.  He then noted that he had not intended to pa   and that it was simply bad judgment on his part. He then attempted to explain that he is often allowe to enter without paying. However, when questioned more closely about the incident and his claim that he >ften was not required to pay, he related a set of circumstances  the ORB found implausible. As for tl theft of government property, he denied any intention to take the items. He averred they were "free is: te" items that could be used for any purpose and did not have to be returned. The ORB was not convinc d by this claim since such items are usually reserved for official use only and must be returned for prope disposal. His explanation for keeping these items in a locked cubbyhole while he was deployed al5 seemed disingenuous.   He claimed he intended to throw away some of the items because they were brok  n, but he	

inexplicably kept them for several weeks, locked them up while he was deployed , and never did 1 broken  items.	The  ORB  was  also perplexed  by  his  failure  to  secure  any  of his  valuables deployment while going to the trouble of securing a fan and three desk calculators, all of whi< lesser value {two desk calculators were broken) than the valuables he left unsecured in his room. baggage-handling  incident, he tried to minimize his conduct by making it sound like nothing me accident.		attempted to persuade the DRB he simply missed when he tossed one bag to anothi handler.   His description  of the events differed  so much  from the version  set forth  in the file impossible to reconcile the two versions.  Presuming regularity, the DRB credited the version cc the  file.	Finally,  although  the  applicant  generally  admitted  his  correctional  custody  delinc attempted  to minimize  his participation  and motives  in an effort to give the impression the c1 custody monitors simply overreacted to his behavior.  The DRB was unconvinced by his interpret

At points during the hearing, the applicant claimed he was the victim of racial discrimination. A did not raise the issue himself (questions by board members brought the issue to light), he p1 evidence of discrimination and could not explain why he perceived such mistreatment. The DRI credible evidence of discrimination in this case. Nor did the DRB find any evidence of imprc based on a personality conflict.

scard the uring his i were of
\.s for the e than an baggage at it was tained in ency, he rrectional
lOll.

nough he vided no found no er action

The applicant also claimed that the action was too harsh, unfair, and unwarranted since he ompleted correctional custody.  However, a careful review of the documents revealed that the applicant w  listed as a correctional custody failure. The applicant's record substantiated that determination.

Given the nature and frequency of the applicant's misconduct, the command's decision to dis1 !large the applicant with a general service characterization was appropriate.

The DRB denies the req uested relief.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief