AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
.'--------------------------	AIC	.---------------.
'	'	''	'
-------------------------	---------------'
TYPE   HON	x	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
YES	I	No
I x

MEMBER SITTING	>----

VOTE OF THE BOARD

·'    --------------------------------

'

''
--:

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x

''	x

'

'

x

----:
' ''
----':

'

'

''	x
----:
''	x
'---------------------------------
ISSU!;S	A93.23	INDEX NUMBER	A62.00	EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
A93.0l	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD 	
A93.09	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 HE

HEARING  DATE	CASE NUMBER

14 Jun 2007	FD-2006-00078
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE AITACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

Case heard in Washington, D.C. by video-teleconference between Andrews AFB, MD and Robins AFB, Georgia. 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 - Reason for discharge and Reenlistment Code

'

.-------------------------------- -----------------------------------f _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .(.)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,

'

t	'
''	y

'

i	''
I
INDORSEMENT	DATE: 6/18/2007
TO,	FROM:
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD

550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40

1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR

RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	ANl>REWS M"B, Mil 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-2006-00078	

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

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, via video­ teleconference between Robins AFB, Georgia and Andrews AFB, Maryland on 14 June 2007.
The following witness also testified on the applicant's behalf: his mother,	• The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing:
Exhibit #5: Alabama Department of Veteran's Affairs Letter, 31 May 2007
Exhibit #6: Gadsden Psychological Services Letter, 18 May 2007
Exhibit #7: Gadsden Police Department Letter, 16 May 2007
Exhibit #8: Mrs. [	]Letter, 14 May 2007

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

FINDINGS: Change of reason and authority  for discharge and change of reenlistment  code 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:

The sole issue advanced by the applicant is that his personal character is not accurately reflected by the separation reason and reentry code.  He would like to be eligible to reenter the military.  The applicant testified that he had always done well and achieved his goals prior to entering the Air Force.  He informed  the board that he was unhappy in the Air Force because his fiancee and her family were pressuring him to  put her needs and desires before the needs of his career.  He was assigned to three different training  programs, but was unable to complete any of them.  He felt unhappy and went to seek help.  As a result of  his request for help, he was interviewed by an Air Force mental health professional.  The applicant informed the Air Force of his previous psychological problems and was then discharged because he had not been honest to the Air Force about his mental health history when he enlisted.  Specifically, he falsely denied ever receiving mental health counseling or taking psychiatric drugs.  Since his discharge the applicant has been successfully attending college and has started working for the Gadsden, Alabama Police Department.

The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a good job.  However, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing.  The Board concluded that his enlistment was fraudulent.  The DRB noted his desire to serve in the Air Force and willingness to misrepresent facts on the medical entry form, but the questions were asked on that form to avoid precisely
the situation which occurred with the applicant.  An otherwise well-meaning individual, who wanted to serve his country but would not have been allowed to do so, lied to the Air Force to gain entry.  After he was brought onto active duty and the Air Force expended substantial resources training him, he experienced psychological difficulties which interfered with his training.

The applicant testified that his recruiter had told him to lie on the form, but the applicant's mother stated in her letter that her son made a conscious choice not to disclose his mental health history so he would not be "labeled" or "denied entry" into the Air Force.  The applicant agreed that he knowi ngly lied and provided false information even though he had sworn it was the truth.  His recruiter's alleged misconduct does not	

absolve the applicant of responsibility for making the false statements.

The DRB concluded that the reason for the applicant's discharge was fraudulent enlistment and that despite the good progress he has made in his life as a civilian and the valuable service he renders his community, he is not well suited to military life.  A change in the reenlistment code would not be in the best interest of the United States Air Force.

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 changing the reason and authority for discharge or the reenlistment code, thus the applicant's reason for discharge and reenlistment code should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief