JOINT BASE CHARLESTON, S.C., –
The below Airmen from Joint Base Charleston were involuntarily discharged due to a lack of performance and/or conduct that demonstrated their lack of potential for further service. Each member should strive to meet and exceed the standards of performance and conduct in order to receive an Honorable discharge.
Members discharged from their current enlistment with a service characterization of less than a fully Honorable discharge are not entitled to receive educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill or the Post 9/11 GI Bill.
A service characterization of Under Honorable Conditions (General) discharge is an enlistment that was marred by negative aspects of a person's duty performance or personal conduct where the negative aspects outweigh the good. The least favorable characterization possible when being recommended for involuntary administrative discharge is Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. An UOTHC discharge reflects that a member's personal conduct fell significantly below acceptable military standards. Members receiving a service characterization of less than an Honorable discharge may find their veteran's benefits denied either in whole or in part and may face substantial prejudice when applying for civilian employment.
A senior airman from the 437th Maintenance Squadron was involuntarily discharged for minor disciplinary infractions with an Under Honorable Conditions (General) discharge for failing to be rehabilitated after receiving formal counseling. The reason for discharge was documented by four Letters of Reprimand after being arrested and charged with driving under the influence by civilian authorities; making two false official statements; impersonating a commissioned officer; and failing to go to an appointed place of duty.
Three staff sergeants from the 628th Security Forces Squadron were involuntarily discharged for unsatisfactory performance due to fitness failure with an Honorable discharge after attempting to rehabilitate them through counseling, education, training, and other adverse administrative actions. The staff sergeants each failed four fitness assessments within 24 months; did not demonstrate significant improvement despite a mandatory conditioning period; and a military health care provider ruled out any medical condition precluding them from achieving a passing score.