AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER  (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE  INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

'	'

r ---------------

TYPE  GEN	x	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
1-c_o.u..,N._SE_L· --1 NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION YES	No
x

AMN
I	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

V·O-T-F-. O--FT- ull' »"'& on

MEMBER SITTING
f--------------------------------
'

'
---:

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x
x

'	x
-:'
'	x
---:
x
----------------------------------   '

ISSUES

A94. 11 AOl.05

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD

2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
5		MEDICAL RECORDS (64 pages) TRAINING RECORDS (51 pages)
6
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DA TE

11 Apr 2006

CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00202	I

APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND THE llOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON TIIE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW llOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

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.

X - Upgrade bf Cid.scharge and Change in Reason	nd Authority are denied.
-   _ -·- - - - - - - - - - - - -,

INDORSEMENT	DATE:  4/12/2006
TO:	FROM:

SAF/MRBR
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, JRD 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

FD-2005-00202	

GENERAL:   The applicant  appeals  for upgrade  of discharge to honorable  and to change the reason  and authority for the discharge

The  applicant  appeared  and  testified  before  the  Discharge  Review  Board  (DRB),  without  counsel,  at Andrews AFB on 11 Apr 2006.  The applicant's mother testified as a witness on the applicant's behalf.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit 5:  Medical records (64 pages)
Exhibit 6:  Training records (51 pages)

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge and change ofreason and authority for discharge are 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:

Issue 1. Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because his supervisors treated him unfairly. Specifically, he argues they punished him for acts he did not commit, falsely accused him of lying, singled him out, and required him to perform duties despite his being placed on quarters due to a shoulder injury. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, four Letters of Reprimand and one Record of Individual Counseling for failing dorm and uniform inspections, false statements, disrespect to an NCO, disobeying an order, and being late to duty.  The applicant disputed many of the facts underlying these actions.  However, the applicant's claims were too sweeping to be credible and were not supported by the statements or testimony of others.  While the medical record was ambiguous as to whether the applicant was placed on quarters or returned to duty, his supervisors had called the military treatment facility to check on his status.  Therefore, the Board was not convinced the applicant was treated inequitably.  The Board opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from the conduct expected of all military members.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

Issue 2.  Applicant contends discharge was improper because he was wrongly denied access to medical care. Specifically, he contends that his discharge should have been delayed to allow further treatment of his shoulder.  The applicant testified that the doctor who performed his separation physical examination requested the applicant be placed on administrative hold pending further medical treatment, but that he was nevertheless discharged.  The separation physical was performed on 28 Feb 05 and documented his shoulder injury.  While two separate Standard Forms 88 were used to record the results of the examination (each recording different portions of the exam), both Forms 88 document pain and instability of the right shoulder in block  17(T).  One of the Forms 88 recommends further orthopedic examination of the shoulder in block  44 but simultaneously finds the applicant "qualified for separation" in block 46.  Moreover, the Board concluded that if the applicant's shoulder injury had been medically disqualifying, administrative discharge under AFI 36-3208 would have been more appropriate than a discharge for medical reasons.  Accordingly, the Board finds no impropriety in his discharge.	

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