AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD

•NAME O•F nSERVICE MEM;B1ER1(L1AS1T., F,IRST MIDllLE INITIAL) 	

AFSN/SSAN

,,....-,....-,....-,....-,....-,....-,....-,....-,....-,....-,....-,....-,....-,....-,....-,....-,....-,....-,....-,....-,....-,....-,....-,....-,....-,....-,....-,....--r-	-,....---   ,....--	---l

TYPE GEN

I	PERSONAL     APPEARANCE

w:1fMii111

YES	No
x

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

MEM BER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

X++

X+

--'---·--------'----	- ..,

X+
=--------- --------   -+--·	-·--1-------1----1---	--·
X+

ISSUF.S

A93.I O A94.12 A93.24

INDFX NUMB'.R

A67.t0

X+
-·-	·1---------- E !hs .UMITTEJ:?ll(i 7'fH g,iRD
l	ORDER APPOINTING THE B_O_A_R._D	_
2	APPLICATION  FOR KEYIFW OF DISCHARGE
---+---	-

AOI.32
A00.40

3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION 	
4	BKIEF Of PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE 130ARO

l--+--A DDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED-A-1·-·r=rM-=E-OF-	,
PERSONAL  APPEAKANCE
--- 	
TAJ'E RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEAKANCF.
------·------' ----··---	---·- - -	-·	 	
HEARING DATE	CASE  NU1BER

22 Jun 2004

FD-2002-0370

Case heard at Wash ington, D.C.

Ad vise appl icant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance wi th/without counsel, and the right to subm it an appl ication to the AFBCMR

SECRETARIAL  AUTHORITY  (++)  OR  TO  COND I TIONS  THAT  INTERFER E  WITH

TO:

FROM:

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
All< t'ORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOARD 1535 COMMAND  OR, f.E WING, JRO 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-2002-0370	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but declined to exercise this right. He did, however, submit additional information for consideration - an e-mail with three attachments documenting the applicant's view of the disciplinary actions taken against him and his position regarding the discharge action.

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

FINDI NGS:  The Board grants the requested relief.

ISSUE:

The applicant was discharged with a general service characterization for miscond uct or, more specifically, minor disciplinary infractions. He received four l etters of reprimand (LOR) and two letters of counseling (LOC) all of which documented two accidental ly bou nced checks, one failure to pay his OPP bill in a timely fashion, one instance of failure to remai n in his quarters pursuant to a medical order to do so, and one missed dental appointment. The file contains additional evidence that bears upon the applicant's situation. lie was experiencing severe personal problems related to the untimely death of his father-in-law and physical incapacitation of his mother-in-law following a car accident. His desire to provide and care for his mother­ in-law created extreme personal distress that led to a diagnosis of an adjustment disorder (an unsuiting condition) and a subsequent recommendation from the mental health provider that the applicant be discharged for conditions that interfere with mili tary service. For reasons that are not set forth in the file, the command did not take this approach; i ndeed, it appears the command either did not know of or chose to ignore this recommendation. The applicant's personal distress did result in his request  for  a  hardship discharge and a humanitarian reassignment, both of which were denied.

Issues 1 - 5.  Applicant raises and the record reveals the existence of five issues in this case: Personal Problems, Personal Distress, Arbitrary and Capricious Command Action, Psychiatric or Psychological Problems, Other Evidence Improperly Considered.	These issues are more appropriately considered together because they are related and all overlap.  In short, the command unfairly failed to properly consider the personal problems that so plagued the applicant that he ultimately received an unsuiting mental health diagnosis and a recommendation  for discharge; and the command arbitrarily and capriciously decided to proceed with a discharge for misconduct based on weak and nearly insufficient evidence.  It appeared to the ORB that the command did not properly consider the personal issues with which the applicant was dealing.  It was not clear whether the command was aware of the diagnosis and discharge recommendation or simply chose to ignore it.  While the command is not bound to follow such a recommendation, it would have been helpful to have, at a minimum, a reference to the recommendation and some indication the command considered that possibility.  In the absence of such evidence, the DRB felt it appropriate to resolve the question in the applicant's favor by concluding the command was either unaware of or chose to ignore the recommendation.  In either case, this amounted to an inequity.  The DRB was also troubled by the quality of the evidence used to support the discharge for misconduct.  Though sufficient as to quantity, the misconduct
for which applicant was discharged was comprised of the very most minor offenses. Moreover, there existed significant mitigation and extenuation the command apparently ignored or of which it was not aware. On the whole, it appeared to the ORB that by pursuing a discharge on such insubstantial evidence of wrongdoing,
the command was more interested in ridding itsel f of what it perceived to be a problem troop rather than	

ful filling its equitable obligation to ful ly and fairly consider all the factors bearing on the applicant's duty performance and to then take appropriate action.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was inconsistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and that the applicant was not provided full administrative due process.

Jn view of the f'C.)fegoing findings the Board further concl udes that there exists a legal and equitable basis for upgrade of discharge and a change to the reason and  authority.  In  l ight of the evidence  in the record,  the DRB concluded that the reason and authority for the discharge should  be  described  as  conditions  that interfere  with  military  service.

In view of the foregoing find ings, the Board concludes that the overall qual ity of applicant's service is more accurately reflected by an honorable discharge and  t hat the reason for the discharge is more  accurately described as conditions that interfere with military service. The applicant's characterization and reason for discharge should be changed to conform with this conclusion pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief