AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAi)

x	I

GRADE

'	I

AFSN/SSAN
llUU!LJ

TYPE GEN

PERSONAL APPEARANCE

RECORD REVIEW

. _OUNSEL- -	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANlZATION
YES	No
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANTZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER  SITTING	DENY
x x
x
x
x
---··----- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··--J

ISSUES

A93.23 A93.IJ A93.07

INDEX NUMBER

A67.09

EXHIBITS SUBMITTED T.0 'fJffi Bl)i\c/  •, >
1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLJCATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
1	
A93.09
3	
LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FI LE COUNSEL'S  RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXH IBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING  OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE  NUMBER

04 Ma r 2004	FD-2003-00517

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

---- ··----- ··----- ··------	---- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··------ ··----- ···;..
...
! -- ··_,,,-,.-.-::-,, _-..---.-------'" __"_"-"- """","---7"- :- " """-"-'-i'=N' -o-"o"R""°°""E"M'"-"i'":k'"r""""·.--...,....,_.-  ---,._.............•........_.: DATE(_4f512004 -    ' :_:--··

TO:

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

FROM:

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE f'ERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDRE"''S 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 NUJVIBER

FD-2003-00517	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals fot an upgrade of the discharge characterization to Honorable and for a change in the reason and authority for the discharge and in the reenlistment code.

The applicant personally appeared before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) at Andrews AFB MD, on 30 March 2004. He was not represented and or accompanied. He submitted one additional exhibit - Exhibit #5: Character Letter, undated.

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

FINDINGS: The Board grants in part and denies in part the requested relief. The discharge is upgraded to Honorable, but the change in the reason and authority for discharge and the change of reenlistment code are denied.

ISSUE:

The applicant was discharged with a general service characterization for a pattern of misconduct or, more specifically, minor disciplinary infractions. He twice received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, as well as a vacation action, three letters of reprimand, a letter of admonition, and a record of individual counseling. He was also verbally counseled on a number of occasions. His misconduct included several instances of failure to go and dereliction of duty for failing to properly perform his duties according to established procedure and the technical orders.

The applicant was married in April 2002; he had been married previously (it ended in divorce). From the beginning, the applicant experienced significant difficulties with his marriage. He and his wife argued constantly (there were apparently no physical altercations, but the verbal confrontations were so significant that at one point, the command removed the applicant from his home and had him spend a couple nights in the dorms), they experienced significant financial problems, there were child care issues, and there were other problems that affected the marriage. The applicant's wife was under psychiatric care and on medication. The applicant was never referred to Life Skills by his command and never sought care himself. The applicant and his wife did undergo marital counseling, but the problems did not abate. In order to conquer the financial issues, the applicant got a second job because his wife  was  unwilling  to  work. Between the second job and his Air Force duties, the applicant was unable to get sufficient sleep. His timeliness and duties suffered as a result. The applicant and his wife divorced within a couple months after the applicant left active duty.

Issue I. The applicant challenged the equity of his discharge action citing his personal, financial, and marital problems.  The DRB found that there did exist significant problems in this regard.  Indeed, it appeared that his troubled marriage was the genesis for all his difficulties.  The DRB determined that while the applicant was only a marginal performer, his performance problems and his misconduct all related to his inability to cope with the problems caused by his marriage.  While the command acted appropriately in handling the disciplinary action against the applicant (to include the discharge action itself), a majority of the board felt that the command could have and should have done more to address the real problem - the applicant's turbulent marriage and wretched personal problems.  For example, the command should not have permitted the applicant to take a second job given the virtual certainty of an adverse impact on his duty performance.
The majority of the DRB felt that had the command become more involved with the applicant and taken a more active concern (rather than simply "checking the regulatory boxes") the applicant could have avoided the discharge characterization and its adverse consequences.  Given the nature and degree of the applicant's	

marital, financial, and personal problems, the command's failure in this regard amounted to an inequity.

Issue 2: The applicant impliedly raised, through his testimony, the possibility of psychological difficulties. It was most apparent in the applicant's inability to cope with the fairly ordinary stress of a marriage. His inability to effectively resolve his unexceptional marital and personal problems and his inability to prevent the resulting impact on his duty performance, also suggested to the DRB a pathological basis for the applicant's difficulties. In the majority's view, these issues were not appropriately addressed by the command. A referral to Life Skills would almost certainly have benefited the applicant and may well have helped him avoid the pitfalls that eventually led to his discharge. The DRB concluded that the command's failure in this regard amounted to an inequity.

The DRB did conclude, however, that applicant's personal problems, apparent difficulty adjusting to and coping with the ordinary demands of marital life, and the resulting misconduct clearly demonstrate that the applicant is unsuited for the rigors of military service.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was not  wholly  consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. In view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that the overall quality of applicant's service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge but that the reason and authority for the discharge and the  reenlistment  code  should  not  be changed.  The applicant's characterization should be changed to Honorable under the provisions of Title 10,
USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief