AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSNISSAN

X	RECORD REVIE
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OFCOUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY

X*+ X*+ X*+ x•+
X*+

A86.00
A94.S5	1 ORDER APPOINTING TIIE BOARD
2 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TOTHE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING  DATE	CASE NUMBER

03 Oct 2013	FD-2013-00548

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, 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.

*Narrative Reason and Authority
+RE Code

TO:

SAF/MRBR
S SO CSTREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OFTHE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL cOUNOL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ISJSCOMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR
ANDREWS AJB. MD 20762-?901

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

CASE NUMBER
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	FD-2013-00548

GENERAL:   The applicant appeals to change the reason and authority for the discharge and to change the reenlistment code.

The applicant was offered a personal  appearance before the Discharge Review Board  (DRB) but declined and requests that the review be completed based on the available service record.

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

FINDING:   The request  to change the reason  and authority  for discharge  and to change the reenlistment code is denied.

ISSUE:	Applicant received an Honorable discharge for Personality Disorder - Conditions that Interfere with Service - Mental Disorders (Personality Disorder)

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because he was never given a full psychiatric evaluation at Lackland AFB TX. After a complete and thorough review of the applicant's records the Board found this contention to have no merit.  The applicant was evaluated by Inpatient Psychiatry Services from
9 December 2002 to 13 December 2002 at Lackland AFB TX.  He was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with depressed mood and chronic stress and a personality disorder.  Based on his evaluation and diagnosis, the evaluating doctor found that his personality disorder significantly impaired his ability to function in the military and stated prompt administrative separation would best serve the interest of the Air Force and the individual.

Applicant contends that his command gave him the option to stay in the service after receiving the doctor's recommendation.   A memorandum, pertaining to this, written by the applicant's flight superintendent, dated 24 January 2003, was found in the applicant's personnel records.  The memorandum states that on
23 January 2003 the base legal office notified the superintendent that the applicant's separation should not
go forward.  The basis for this recommendation was the fact that on 3 January 2003 the superintendent wrote an initial assessment of the applicant's work performance and desire to stay in the Air Force.	His initial impression was that the applicant was capable and had the desire to stay in the Air Force.  However, on
23 January 2003, when the superintendent informed the applicant that his separation should not go forward, he became extremely upset.  The superintendent stated the applicant became extremely anxious and troubled by the news he would not be separated.  He stated he objected to the recommendation and felt the Air Force was discounting the medical recommendation for his discharge.  Based on his reaction to the news, the superintendent changed his evaluation of the applicant's desires and performance. On 24 January 2003, the superintendent stated that he believed separation from the Air Force would be in the best interest of the applicant and the Air Force.

Applicant contends he was not aware he was being discharged for a personality disorder.  The Board found this contention to have no merit.  The applicant was notified on 28 January 2003 his commander was recommending him for discharge for Conditions that Interfere with Military Service - Mental Disorders, IAW AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, Chapter 5. Section B, paragraph 5.11.9.1, Personality Disorder.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification on 28 January 2004 at 1620 hrs.

The applicant contends he never had any duty related issues, however the discharge notification memorandum, acknowledged by on the applicant on 28 January 2003, states the applicant received one Article  15, three Letters of Reprimand, and three Letters of Counseling for misconduct during his time in

service.  This misconduct included used vulgar language to another military member over government email, failed to prepare for an open inspection as ordered, failed to follow orders, failed to return from lunch on time, failed to go to duty on time (4x), disobeyed order from SNCO to get a haircut, and vouched for civilian onto Kessler AFB who was detained for excessive noise and underage consumption.   Although this information was not used to characterize the discharge, IAW AFI 36-3208, it may be considered by the discharge authority when deciding whether or not to retain or separate the applicant.

The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has graduated college.  However, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

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