AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
C:s 11r

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

AMN	5

TYPE GEN

YES	No
x

PERSONAL APPEARANCE
NAME  OF COUl\SEL AND OR ORGANIZ.ATION

x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AD OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

A93.23

ll"DEX NUMBER

A67.IO

l	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFJCA TION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARlNG DATE	CASE NUMBER

04 Aug 2004	FD-2004-00145

Case heard at 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.

-··----- ·---	------ ---"'---- ·-<--	------- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··.

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COU:SCTL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE 'WING, 3RD 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

FD2004-00145	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board but declined to exercise this right.

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

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 discharge.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions. He had four Letters of Reprimand, a Letter of Counseling, an Article 15, and a vacation of suspended punishment. His misconduct included failure to go, sleeping on duty, being unavailable for on-call duty, failing to secure government property, and twice failing dormitory inspections. These incidents of misconduct occurred during the period May 1998 to February 2000. Member was also diagnosed as having a dysthymic disorder, personality disorder, and an adjustment disorder with depressed mood, and was a continuing care patient in the Mental Health Clinic from January 1998 to September 1999 when he last came to the clinic. He also had a period of in­ patient care in June 1998 following a suicidal gesture, and also showed signs of alcohol abuse. These mental health issues did not rise to the level of a medical evaluation board however.  Additionally, member underwent two separate sleep studies to determine if he had a sleep disorder, but the results showed no pathologic hypersomnolence or evidence of sleep apnea. At the time of the discharge, after consulting counsel, member submitted a statement in his own behalf asserting he suffered from Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD), which predicated many of his instances of misconduct, and requested to be allowed to reach the end of his term of service. Applicant brings the same contention now. Thorough review of applicant's extensive service medical record disclosed diagnosis for SAD, only a reference to a seasonal component of his dysthymia, therefore the Board found this contention without merit. Although the Board recognizes member's mental health diagnoses may have contributed to his poor performance, judgment and the inability to follow rules and regulations, the Board noted that he knew right from wrong, was still responsible for his actions of misconduct, and should be held accountable for those. He was counseled repeatedly and given numerous opportunities to improve his behavior but failed to respond to those rehabilitative efforts. Furthermore, existence of an adjustment or personality disorder does not bar separation for any other authorized reason, such as misconduct, if that reason is more appropriate; a discharge for an adjustment or personality disorder is not appropriate if the airman's record supports discharge for misconduct. No inequity or impropriety was found in this discharge in the course of the records review.

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