AI R FORCE DISCHARG E REVIEW BOARD HEARI NG RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE  MEMBER ( LAST,  FIRST MIDDLE  INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

I	I	AB	I
TYPE   GEN	x	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COU NSEL YES	No
x
VOTE OF THE BOARD
MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
X+	*

'

X+	*

X+	*

X+	*

X+	*
ISSUES	A93.02	I NDEX NUMBER	A67.10	EXHIBITS   SUBMITTED   TO  THE   BOARD
1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOT!FICA T!ON	'
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

31 Oct 2006	FD-2006-00076
APPUCANT'S ISSUB AND THI!BOARD'S DECISIONA,L RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOAAD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

Case heard in 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 appl icant's request.

+ CHANGE REASON  AND AUTHORITY  TO SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY
* DENY RE CODE
I	/J
SIGNATURE OF RECORDER	/ .........- 1	I Slli!VATURE QF BOARD P1<>:1ilDENT ,..,
I
INDORSEMENT	DATE: 10/3112006
TOo	I    FROM.
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSON NEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST,  SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND DR, EE WI NG, JRD FLOOR

RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78I 50-4742

ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

I

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2006-00076	

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

The  applicant  appeared  and  testified  before  the  Discharge  Review  Board  (ORB),  without  counsel,  at Andrews AFB on 31 Oct 2006.

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

FINDINGS: The Board finds that the evidence of record and that provided by applicant substantiates an inequity that would justify a change of discharge. Upgrade of discharge to honorable and change of reason and authority for discharge to Secretarial Authority is granted.  Change of reenlistment code is denied.

ISSUE: The applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because he was immature at the time of his misconduct and contends he has matured since separation. The applicant cited his desire to reenter military service and receive G.I. Bill benefits.

The records show the applicant received two Records of Individual Counseling, one Letter of Admonishment, two Letters of Reprimand, an Article 15, and a Vacation Action for minor disciplinary infractions.  Except for two instances of poor financial judgment that were not willful misconduct (i.e. paying more than market value for an automobile), the applicant's misconduct was entirely due to reporting
late for duty on a recurring basis over a period of four months in the setting of marital discord.  The applicant was evaluated in the Mental Health Clinic following the period of tardiness for which he was disciplined leading to diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder.  Although the psychologist did not indicate the severity of the Adjustment Disorder rose to a level warranting a recommendation for discharge under provisions for unsuitability, the Board noted that the misconduct, reporting late for duty, was due to marked sleep disturbance associated with the Adjustment Disorder and not due to willful misconduct, poor attitude or lack of effort.  The Board also noted the mental health evaluation was not a commander directed evaluation and therefore the commander would not ordinarily be aware of the diagnosis unless the member informed him; however, the Board also opined that there was enough evidence present in the record that should have prompted the commander to further investigate this possibility.  The Board concluded based on the preponderance of the evidence of the record and from testimony, that the applicant was unsuited for military service due to Adjustment Disorder and that the nature of misconduct was such that discharge under provisions for unsuitability would have been more equitable than under provisions for misconduct.

The ORB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well following separation living at home and working in a stable job.  However, the Board concluded that the evidence of the record and of testimony clearly indicates the applicant remains unsuited for military service.

The applicant cited his desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits as justification for upgrade; however, the ORB noted that the applicant did not complete the 36-month period of service required for these benefits that is listed on the DD Form 2366 signed by the applicant.  He should contact the Department of Veterans Affairs regarding questions of eligibility.

CONCLUSIONS: Although the Discharge Review Board concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process, the Board concluded that the dia1mosis of Adjustment Disorder and the nature of the misconduct more equitably formed a basis	

for discharge under provisions for unsuitability. The applicant's characterization for discharge should be changed to honorable and the reason for discharge should be changed to Secretarial Authority under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553. No change in the reenlistment code is recommended.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief