AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD

HTIAL)

TYPE  GEN	X	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
No
x

MEMBER SITTING

HON

x x x

x

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

x

ISSUES

A94.06 A92.22 A93.20

INDEX NUMBER

A80.00

1	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 EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

01 Dec 2005

FD-2005-00204

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.

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

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, lRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-700l

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

AIR
FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00204	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, for a change in reason and authority for discharge, and to change the reenlistment code.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, at Andrews AFB on 08 Sep 2005.

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

FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge to Honorable is approved. The request for change of reason and authority are denied. A reenlistment code change does not apply in officer discharge cases.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant which substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge. However, based upon the record and evidence provided by applicant, the Board finds the applicant's misconduct, committed during a relatively limited period of time in his Air Force career, was an aberration when considering his entire military service and post-military career.

ISSUE: The applicant contends that his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and did not take into account additional factual evidence that may have resulted in a different decision than rendered by the discharge authority. The applicant also contends that the decisional rationale offered in his previous non-personal appearance DRB "ignored the evidence of depression as a source of [his] aberrant behavior, including alcohol abuse." The records indicated that the applicant received a General, under Honorable conditions, discharge after acceptance of his request for Resignation In Lieu of Involuntary Discharge. The applicant received two Article 15's, for several instances of failure to attend his required place of duty, namely emergency room duty, surgical on-call duty, and ob-gyn rotations, during an internship training period. Additional charges included reporting to an alcohol treatment program with the odor of alcohol on his breath, the making of a false official statement, on or about 11 November 1991, that his father had died, and absenting himself from his place of duty from on or about 28 February 1992 to on or about 2 March 1992. The applicant provided testimony that he was erroneously informed that his father had indeed died, in a telephone conversation with another physician in training,	mably aware of his father's actual clinical status. The applicant also provided written evidence that retired Colonet    of the Department of Psychiatry at the time he was evaluated for alcohol abuse, believed that the applicant s principal diagnosis should have been that of a depressive disorder, a condition which the applicant believed could have resulted in a Medical Evaluation Board and a medical discharge. The applicant also testified that he had established a difficult interpersonal professional relationship with two Air Force medical officers during a prior assignment, who then later became reassigned at the same institution (Malcolm Grow Medical Center), and that both officers conducted psychiatric evaluations on the applicant, rendering the diagnosis of alcohol dependence. Implicit in the applicant's  testimony is that the aforementioned, allegedly errant, evaluations adversely influenced the reason for his discharge. While the member's instances of missed duty rotations were well documented, the Board found no evidence that these resulted in the issuance of either letters of counseling or reprimand. However, they were later retrieved and utilized among the bases for the member's discharge action. With reference to the applicant's absence from duty from on or about 28 February 1992

immediate supervisor (Major f Pl•and his supervisor's secretary	of his planned absence in order to to on or about 2 March 1992 (also involving a weekend), there is written evi   ce of record that the applicant informed his
take care of his vandalized car. T\ DRB noted the applicant had previously per orme e ceptionally well as a judge advocate and medical-legal advisor prior to entering upon a period of medical training. Since the applicant's discharge he has returned to the legal profession in the civilian federal service, again with evidence of remarkable job performance and a range of community involvement.

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.

However, after collectively considering all available facts and evidence presented in the applicant's case, to include his postc service activities, the DRB believed that the comparatively brief period of misconduct displayed by the applicant while in training was an aberration, and that his military service should be more appropriately characterized as Honorable. However, the reason and authority for the applicant's discharge shall remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief