AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

-' ----------------------------------- '

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

''	'

''	'

L-----------------------------------1 '

AB	--- --- -- --- ---·'

TYPE   GEN	x	I	PERSONAL    APPEARANCE	I	RECORD   REVIEW

YES	No
x

'
'' '
---:
'
'' '
---:
'
''

>••••    NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

MEMBER SITTING

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

_       -;ii THE BOARD
HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER

x x
x

DENY

'' '
'L------------------------------

X*+

x

ISSUES

A94.06

1\IWX    1 'MBER

A67.50

EXHIBITS SUBMJTTED TO THE BOARD
1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBl\1ITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

06 Apr 2006	FD-2005-00467

I  -

....'>.	Ii:' .4NnTHF.  tn..1.	.TIONALARE DISCUSSED ON 1111: /\t
'  '	i

ui::r  AIU   ..,,	RATIONALE

Case heard at 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.

* CHANGE RE CODE
+ CHANGE REASON AND AUTHORITY TO SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY
,HCiNATJ.lR.E_QE FE!:OFDER_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J SlQN.AU.!JU;.9f !19,1..RJJ_   Hll>l - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
'
''
'L-----------------------------------------------------------	----------------------------------------
!_C':nnR"'"'u"'"'T	DATE:  411712006
TO:	FROM:

SAF/l\1RBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR 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-2005-00467	

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 06 Apr 2006. The following witness, MSgt (Ret.) ---_-_ _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- the applicant's grandfather, also testified on
the applicant's behalf.
The following additional exhibits were presented before the Board: Exhibit #5: The applicant's resume with references
Exhibit #6: Job Description
Exhibit #7: Letters of Recommendation  (3)

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

FINDINGS: The Board grants an upgrade of discharge to Honorable. The request for the change of reason and authority for discharge and change of reenlistment code is denied.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by applicant which substantiates an impropriety that would justify a change of discharge. However, based collectively upon the record and evidence and testimony provided by applicant, the Board finds that the applicant's discharge was indeed too harsh and, thus, approved an upgrade of discharge to Honorable.

ISSUE: The applicant contends that his discharge was inequitable because it was "too harsh, considering all else that was going on" at the time. In reverse order of occurrence, the records indicated that the applicant received an Article 15 (for loitering and use of a personal cellular telephone while on duty), three Letters of Reprimand (one for a missed mandatory fitness appointment and twice late for duty) and one Letter of Counseling (late for duty for a third time), resulting in his discharge for a pattern of misconduct. In explaining the reasons  for  the  recurring  instances  of tardiness, the applicant testified that he did not own a personal vehicle for transportation to and from work, and that the base did not provide transportation from his dormitory to his assigned to place of duty  (Cheyenne  Mountain complex), roughly a distance of 15 miles. The applicant instead reportedly relied upon a co-worker for transportation, who in at least one instance departed for work and left the applicant behind without notification. In another instance (4 April 2005), the applicant was required to report to duty at 1645, but instead showed up at 1720. The Board favorably considered the possibility that the applicant's tardiness was the result of forgetting about  the  change  of  time  to Daylight Saving Time, as he testified was the case.  The Board acknowledged that Air Force members are responsible to reaching their place of duty in a timely manner, regardless to the availability of base-sponsored transportation. However, the Board believed that the applicant's relative remote duty location and the lack of dedicated transportation from his place of residence created a unique obstacle, which otherwise would not have resulted in  most  of  the applicant's instances of tardiness, were he assigned at any of the vast majority of Air Force installations where there is easy access to and from work or alternate modes of base transportation. With reference to the applicant's failure to attend a mandatory fitness appointment, the Board considered the possibility that he was unable to access the full text of an email notification to all affected personnel, as he testified. However, the Board noted that the applicant had access to alternative computer devices within his place of duty and that he could have consulted with his supervisor for clarification of the requirement, instead of choosing to rely upon his personal computer at his place of residence. With reference to the applicant's most serious instance of misconduct, and that which likely formed the principal basis for his discharge, the applicant testified that while he and a junior partner were posted as gate sentinels, each individual errantly failed to adequately monitor and clear a vehicle that entered the base without proper authorization, while reportedly distracted by either handling or using a personal cellular  telephone.  However,  without  the  applicant's prompt notification of proper authorities, the unauthorized base entrant would not have been apprehended nor would command officials have been aware of the error. While the applicant's actions do not mitigate his failure to properly monitor a vehicle, the Board believed that he would likely not have received non-judicial punishment  had he chosen	

not to self-report the events that took place. The Board noted the expansive pre-service accomplishments of the applicant that reflect a  positive work ethic and high moral character, to include his academic achievements, participation as a teacher's aide at a university, top Civil Air Patrol recognition, selection for a Congressional internship, and volunteer work in the Office of Presidential Student Correspondence (The White House). The Board also acknowledged the recognition of the applicant's leadership qualities, while serving as a member of the 332nd Drill Team, 332nd Training Squadron, Keesler AFB, Mississippi. Likewise, the Board was pleased to see the applicant's post-service accomplishments and his employment in the computer technology field in a public school system. While, none of the applicant's misconduct reflects favorably upon his Air Force career, in consideration of the totality of his military service, and the mitigating circumstances surrounding some of the applicant's misconduct, the Board believed his military service is best characterized as Honorable.

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 special circumstances surrounding several instances of the applicant's misconduct, the Board concluded that the overall quality of his service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge, but that the reason for discharge and the RE code shall remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief