AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MllJOLE INITIAL)

X  PERSONA L APPEARANCE	RECORD  REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS  AND OR ORGANIZATION  o·COUNSEL

ISSUES
A94.05/06

INDEX NUMBER
A42.00

HEARJNG DAT£
8 MAY 2003

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0350

3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4		BRJEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL f.XHrBITS SUBMITIED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

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

SAF/MIBR
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, 3RD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762·7002

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

Daniel W. Myers,

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2002-0350	

GENERAL:   The applicant appeals for upgrade a change in reason and authority for discharge and to change his reenlistment code.

The applicant appeared and testifiCd before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, at Andrews AFB, Maryland on 8 May 2003.  The following witness also testified on the applicant's behalf: Master Gunnery Sergeant	..	Retired  USMC (applicant's father·in-law)
.
,The following additional 9xh!bits were submitted at the hearing:

•C
Exhibit 6: VA Medical Evaluation
Exhibit 7: Three internet dbcuments on the allergic reactions to bee and wasp stings
t
The attached brief contaiJs the available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.	fy

FINDINGS: The change in reason for discharge and change in reenlistment code are denied.

The Board finds that neither evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant, provides a sufficient basis for a change in reason for discharge or a change in reenlistment code.

The applicant's issues are listed in the attached brief.

Issues.  The applicant received an Honorable discharge for an Adjustment Disorder, with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct, and a Personality Disorder, not otherwise specified.  The central issue the  applicant has put forth in writing focuses on his contention that witnesses to the maladaptive behavior,  which he displayed after his discovery of a failing grade on his Block III examination, provided inconsistent accounts of events which took place. Specifically the applicant opined the "inconsistencies in the statements between personnel, did not warrant this [separation] action".   Although at least five witnesses provided written statements, all with an identical reference to the applicant breaking his flashlight, then striking his
hand or wrist onto sharp or broken parts of the flashlight, the applicant contends "marks" identified on his arms by medical personnel were the result of insect stings or bites, which he had sustained earlier, while handling trash in a dumpster or other receptacle for the disposal of refuse.  The DRB considered the plausibility the" quarter-sized" markings identified on the applicant's arms could have been the result of the common cutaneous manifestation of an allergic reaction, such as hives.  However, the Board found compelling the witness statement from the health care professional who evaluated the applicant at the	
82MDG hospital emergency room.  This independent witness, with no reason to fabricate a story, provided
the following written statements regarding the applicant: "The patient voiced that he failed his block 3 test today and that triggered a lot of bad feelings inside of him. He states that in his anger he took his flashlight and busted [it] up. After doing so he repeatedly slammed his arms down on the broken flashlight in an attempt to make himself feel better, but it did not tork." When asked specific questions by the DRB about events surrounding his acts of self-injury, the applicant's memory was selectively impaired. The
applicant's witness for the DRB challenged the validity of the official mental health evaluation conducted, a single-page document, citing an absence of supporting evidence of mental health records. It was explained to the applicant's witness the purpose of the single document was to transmit a diagnostic summary of the applicant's condition for consideration by the discharge authority.  The applicant's witness for the DRB also challenged the notion the applicant was trying to commit suicide by striking his arms or wrists on broken parts of a flashlight. The DRB concurs the applicant's actions were unlikely an attempt to commit

suicide, based upon published data on suicide attempts among the male population.  However, the DRB
opines, nonetheless, the applicant's maladaptive behavior is consistent with the diagnostic concJusions reached by the mental health professionals consulted in the applicant's case.

CONCLUS.IONS:   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.

Examiner's  Brief