-	" ,	AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SEVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
AB	1 1 11111•1•

TYPE GEN	x

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
 	I 	

RECORD REVIEW
I

COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS  AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL YES	No
x	·-·
VOTE OF; J1IE BOARD
MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC     I	OTHER	DENY

..

.

-------------------------------------- ·..
µ	.
...

..

...

..

"	...

.

...

X* X* X*+ X*+
X*

--------------------------------------
SSUES	A94.06	INDEX NUMBER	A67.50	•   ·EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO IBE  BOARD
1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICA TJON
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDlTIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

20 Apr 2004	FD-2003-00551
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISlONAL RATIONAL ARE D1SCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AlR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

Case heard at Ft Gillem, GA via videoconference at And rews AFB, MD.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

* CHANGE RE CODE
+ CHANGE REASON AND AUTHORITY  TO SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY

l

..

 1......,._.•.• ,.....;::s;:..,. ,..,.......,,,..,....,,..,..,.., ••• ••• J. • •• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••••• ••• ••• •• .i.Frl a.•J,....;:;J\i'.Q'i'llV'\lyi,'fillo PPiFliii™'liii • •
.

---------------...

...

.

INDORSEMENT

------------------------	- --- -DATE: -4hoi2oo4

TO:	FROM:

SAF/MRBR

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
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 20762-7002

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2003-0055 1	
GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, for a change of the reason and authority for the discharge, and for a change to the reenlistment code. The applicant appeared before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) on 20 April 2004 at Ft Gillem GA via video teleconference with Andrews
AFB MD. The applicant was represented by Mr. ;IJ tlli Q t . of the Florida Department of Veterans Affairs.
The following additional Exhibits were admitted into evidence: Exhibit #6, Florida State Driving Record
Exhibit #7, New Jersey State Driving Record Exhibit #8, Statement, Ms. Desiree McLaughlin Exhibit #9, Extract, OPM Investigation

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

FINDINGS: Upgrade of Discharge and change of reenlistment code is approved. The applicant's request to change the reason and authority for his separation is denied. The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by applicant substantiates an impropriety that would justify changing his military records. However, based upon the record and evidence provided by applicant the Board finds that the characterization of the applicant's discharge is inequitable.

ISSUE: The applicant contends his discharge is inequitable because it is too harsh. Specifically, he claims that his discharge is "based on one isolated incident in 35 months of service with no other adverse action." The applicant is a former Security Forces patrolman. After serving very commendably for 2 years and receiving notice he was about to leave on a coveted assignment to Florida, the applicant engaged in a series of infractions over a 33-day period which convinced his commander that he should be discharged. After the applicant's former wife notified base authorities that his driver's license had been suspended, a Security Force's patrol man directed him not to drive on base until the matter had been resolved. Evidence provided by the applicant at the hearing shows his former wife was wrong and that his license was, in fact, valid. At the time, however, base authorities could not confirm the validity of the license. Rather than comply with the order or provide evidence he had a valid license, the applicant decided to ignore the order. When his unit discovered he drove on base despite the order, they cancelled his pending assignment to Florida. His supervisor directed him to "immediately" return the airline tickets he received in connection with his cancelled assignment to the Transportation Management Office (TMO). Instead of returning the tickets "immediately," the applicant did not promptly comply. For this, he received a reprimand. About 2 weeks later, the applicant got into a dispute with his estranged former wife. At the time, his supervisors believed the applicant entered her house without authority and spat upon her. For this, he received a second reprimand. The final incident occurred a week later. On this occasion, the applicant left his post to go to lunch without first seeking his supervisor's permission. For this last incident and for disobeying the order to refrain from driving on base (discussed above), the applicant's commander imposed nonjudicial punishment. With the exception of the incident involving his former wife (who now states the applicant did not spit on her), the applicant admitted the events occurred as described and acknowledged he was responsible for his actions. In addition, the applicant told the DRB that while these events were transpiring, he met with his first sergeant and told him that he no longer desired to be in the Air Force. He encouraged his first sergeant to prepare a discharge package which he knew would result in his separation from the service. Based on this evidence, the DRB concluded his commander properly initiated discharge action for misconduct and appropriately declined to recommend the applicant be considered for probation and rehabilitation.

Although the discharge is proper and amply supported by the evidence, the applicant's otherwise commendable service record coupled with the extenuating circumstances surrounding his failing marriage	

convinced the DRB that his service characterization and re-enlistment code should be changed. For 2 years prior to this brief period of misconduct, the applicant had an exemplary record. His performance reports, overseas service, medals, and character statements all show the applicant commendably performed his duties. In reviewing the situation with his former spouse, the DRB took particular notice of the OPM report. The OPM report indicated his former wife was vindictive and actively sought to undermine his military career. The DRB found his unfortunate family situation may  have affected the applicant's ability to serve satisfactorily.   For these reasons, the DRB recommends the applicant's service characterization be upgraded to honorable and his re-enlistment code be changed to permit his re-entry into the Reserves.

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 that his re-enlistment code should be changed to permit
re-entry into the Reserves.  As there is ample misconduct supporting the commander's decision to discharge the applicant, the DRB concluded the reason and authority for discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief