AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

1  .ntE OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
mmmn r	•

GRADE

LT COL

AFSN/SSAN

TYPE GEN	X	PERSONAL APPEARANCE
N'AMtE OF COUNSEL AND OR O:RrGA.:N:IZ·AT.ION

RECORD REVIEW

DDRE

A	SS AND OR ORGANJZA TION OF COUNSEL

YES	No

·..,..·	' ""' ' "	•   ,	,,

,	• !

.

'

'  .

x	•	,,_,	I

°"'

<	-	!J >

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x

x
x
x x
- - - - - ----- - - - - ----- - - - - ----- - -  - ----- - - - - ---'-------------!

ISSUES

A94.l I A92.0I A92.03 AOl.39 A92.19 A02.2\

ll'iDEX NUMBER

AS0.00

I	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATJON FOR REVIEW OF DlSCHARGE
3	LEITER OF NOTJFICATJON
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FlLE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEA RlNG DATE	CASE NUMBER

17 Nov 2004	FD-2004-00098

1  Case heard via video teleconference between Andrews AFB, MD and Randolph AFB, TX.

1  DD Form  149 submitted.  Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the case will be forwarded to the AFBCMR for
1  further processing.

,------------------------------------_)_    ----	----'.A/]__ -------------------------------------------------,
'	'·----------1

SAf   /MRBR	SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
550 C STREET Vv'	, SUITE 40	1535 COMMAJ"i"D DR. EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150·4742	ANDREWS AFB, MD Z0762-7002

L.	--

  l_	 J

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition µ,·ill be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NU:\1BER

FD-2004-00098	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel at Andrews AFB, MD, via video teleconference with Randolph AFB, TX, on November  17, 2004.

The following additional exhibit was submitted at the hearing:
Exhibit 5: Additional submission consisting of 49 pages, provided on November 17, 2004.

The attached brief contains the available pertinent data on the applicant and factors leading to the discharge. The applicant's issues are also listed in the attached brief.

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge is denied.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of the discharge.

Issues 1 - 5. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. Applicant also contended that he should not be penalized indefinitely for his mistake. He noted his excellent service record and his good post-service citizenship. The records indicated the applicant received an Under Honorable Conditions (General) discharge pursuant to his request to be discharged in lieu of further
administrative discharge processing for disrespect to another commissioned  officer, mistreatment  of several female subordinate personnel by inappropriate comments and touching, and conduct unbecoming an officer by inappropriate comments about patients, co-workers, and his medical duties in front of subordinate enlisted personnel.  These actions were documented in, and member was punished for them via, an Article
15. The Board recognized applicant's duty performance was satisfactory for most of his period of military servic however, his misconduct was sufficient reason for receiving a General discharge. Unacceptable conduct that is a significant departure from the conduct expected of an officer adversely impacts otherwise satisfactory duty performance. Applicant's misconduct was of enough severity to warrant his discharge.

Issues 6 & 7. Applicant contends the actions of his chain of command were baseless, arbitrary and capricious. He felt the investigation of his actions was improper, and the discharge was unjust and dishonest. The Board found this issue without merit. The applicant's assertions were not supported by evidence nor the record. The cumulative result of member's multiple incidences of misconduct, which tended to disrupt good order, discipline, and morale, was a General discharge that the Board finds appropriate. Characterization as Honorable is only appropriate when the record has been so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. The applicant's military records clearly document conduct totally incompatible with military service, and the Secretary of the Air Force, while
aware of the option to approve an Honorable discharge, determined that General discharge (under honorable conditions) was appropriate.

Issue 8.  During the hearing applicant further contended he had inadequate legal counsel.  The Board finds this issue without merit.  The record fully documents that applicant had the advice and assistance of counsel throughout his Article 15 and discharge processing.  His counsel submitted a several page written document on member's behalf and it appeared by the record that the counsel diligently executed his duties.
Furthermore, although applicant stated in hearing he would have preferred to argue his case at court martial, he further conceded that the conduct unbecoming an officer charge would constitute a felony if convicted, and could ruin his career.   The record clearly shows that member consulted counsel, waived his right to court martial and accepted the Article 15. Applicant stated he did so because he thought this would terminate the discharge action and preserve his ability to continue practicing medicine.  Applicant further stated this was also the initial reason he submitted his resionation in response to the dischar"e action,	

although he later tried to withdraw his resignation after his medical credentials were restored.  At the time he submitted his resignation, he signed a statement acknowledging that he understood the consequences of his request to resign.  Applicant was clearly familiar with his options, thus it appeared to the Board that with the assistance and advice of counsel, applicant considered his options and chose those he thought posed the least risk to his future.  There is no evidence that the applicant's rights were in any way violated and the applicant didn't provide any such evidence.  The fact that the results of the legal counsel or actions taken were not what member desired does not constitute inadequate counsel.  Applicant failed to demonstrate his allegation of ineffective counsel.

CONCLUSIONS:   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.

In view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief