AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

TIAL)

GRADE

TYPE HON	X

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

AMN

RECORD REVIEW

YES	No
x

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANJZA TION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANJZA TION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x
x x

ISSUES

A93.0I A92.01 A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A67.50

I	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL E HIBITS SUBMITTED A TIM 0
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

27 Jan 2006	FD-2005-00106

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

/ )
SI

TO:

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

FROM:

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD l0762-7002

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00106	

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

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, via video teleconference at Andrews AFB on 27 Jan 2005. The following witnesses also testified on the applicant's behalf: Mrs	:her mother).

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit #6:  Memorandum from member 30 Sep 04
Exhibit #7:  Memorandum from CMS--28 Jun 04
Exhibit #8:  Memorandum from MSG	21 Jun 04
--
Exhibit #9: E-mail message from Ms _ 29 Sep 04
Exhibit #10: Memo for Record from SrA -26 Jan 06 Exhibit # 11: Memorandum from Capt (Dr.)	12 Aug 04
Exhibit #12:  Members statement  30 Sep 04
Exhibit #13: Notes by applicant's mother, Aug 2004, 10 pages Exhibit # 14: Essay by applicant, October 1997

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge to Honorable 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.

ISSUE: The applicant contends her discharge was too harsh due to mitigating  circumstances  including family problems and personal losses, depression and alcohol abuse. She asserts she was unfairly singled out and harshly punished by her supervisor and in tum, her chain of command. She asserts her chain  of command mishandled her case.  The records indicate that the applicant received 2 Letters of Admonishment, 5 Letters of Reprimand, 2 Articles 15, and a Vacation Action for repeated failure to go, failure to obey, and dereliction of duty.

Issue 1: The applicant contends her discharge was too harsh due to mitigating circumstances including family problems and personal losses, depression and alcohol abuse.  Evidence of the record shows a diagnosis of recurrent depression while in service and she testified that she had experienced recurrent depressed mood since adolescence and had been treated by mental health professionals including with medication prior to entering the Air Force.  Although she experienced transient depressed mood at the time of her boyfriend's death in December 2002, she testified that incidents ofreporting late for duty occurring several months later in 2003 were not related to symptoms of depression or alcohol use.  The applicant also testified that incidents of reporting late and duty performance difficulties in the early part of 2004 were not related to use of alcohol or feeling depressed, but rather were due to miscommunication, poor management by her supervisor and being singled out for the same behavior and conduct that was tolerated in her co­ workers.  She testified that alcohol use became a problem approximately two weeks before she sought help
in the mental health clinic following receipt of a Letter of Admonishment for poor duty performance of three months duration.  The applicant denied using alcohol following completion of alcohol rehabilitation and attributes subsequent incidents of failure to go to medication side effects.  In her written responses to disciplinary action by her supervisors and commander, the applicant asserted side effects from medications that were initiated only a few days before the incidents; however, service medical records show treatment	

with these medications for over two months without complaint of side effects prior to the incidents.

Issue 2:  The applicant asserts she was unfairly singled out by her supervisor for punishment and in tum, by her chain of command.  She states she was singled out for the same behavior and conduct that was tolerated in her co-workers.  Although the applicant now testifies to this issue, she did not raise this as an issue at any of the times that she made written responses to disciplinary actions, her referral enlisted performance report or in her response to discharge action.  The applicant's testimony did not add any further clarity to the evidence of the record.

Issue 3: The applicant contends her chain of command mishandled her case.  Evidence of the record shows that the applicant was provided medical care and sent for intensive alcohol rehabilitation treatment, that her commander participated in treatment team meetings with her mental health treatment team and afforded her an opportunity for a second chance through correctional custody.  The applicant consulted legal counsel and provided her commander with written responses that she testified were prepared with the assistance of legal counsel.  The applicant argues now that she should have received a medical discharge instead of an administrative discharge.  She asserts that during a one week hospital stay at an Army hospital that immediately followed her last Article 15 action, her Army psychiatrist stated that medical discharge was indicated.  However, there is no documentation in the medical record including by her Air Force psychiatrist, or in the discharge package that raises this as an issue.  Evidence of the record indicates her psychiatrist was aware of her administrative difficulties and that her mental health treatment team communicated with her commander; however, there is no evidence that a recommendation for medical discharge was made or contemplated.  Available service medical records indicate that her depressive symptoms were assessed as mild by mental health providers.  Furthermore, this was not an issue that the applicant raised with her commander at the time of her discharge.

Issue 4: The applicant states that she was a good airman and that the positive aspects of her career outweighed the bad.  The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by her performance reports and noted excellent duty performance as annotated in her first Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) which closed out 29 May 2003.  However, the Board found the misconduct offaet any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance as documented in the applicant's second EPR which closed out 29 May 2004.

Issue 5:  Applicant contends that she should not be penalized indefinitely for a mistake she made when young.  The DRB recognized the applicant was 23 years of age when the discharge took place.  However, there is no evidence she was immature or did not know right from wrong.

The Board, after reviewing the evidence of the personnel record, medical record and testimony by the applicant did not conclude that the preponderance of the evidence showed that depression or alcohol abuse caused her misconduct or that she was singled out by her entire chain of command for offenses that were allegedly tolerated and went unpunished in her peers.  There was insufficient evidence to show that medical evaluation board was indicated as life skills documentation in the medical record reflected mild symptoms and made no reference to a requirement for MEB at the time the applicant was undergoing administrative discharge.  The applicant consulted legal counsel and this was not an issue the applicant made at the time of her discharge.  The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case and that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.

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