AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE I NITIA L)	GRADE

·---------- ----·

·'----------------------------- .'
'------------------------------ '

SRA

''
'!.. •• - - - - - - - - - - - -·

TYPE GEN

x	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	RECORD  REVIEW

x	------------------- ·'

·

------------------- '

Al>DRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

'

'
!
------------------------------

HON

x x
X*+ X*+
x

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

ISSUES

A94.11 A02.17 A92.22 AOI.49 A93.0l A92.16 AOl.48

NDEX NUMBER	A67.10

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
ADDlT ONA    EXH I BIT   S	TE	T     ME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

01 May 2007
-PIJ, '  T IS UE AN

FD-2006-00359

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

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

* Change Reason for Discharge
+ Change RE Code

-------------------------·-························- ·.t:'.......-'l.•••••••••••••_ _ _ _ _ _ ,

N-'-l-'f ----,-"-

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-2006-00359	

GENERAL:	The applicant appeals for upgrade  of discharge to honorable  and 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 (ORB), with counsel, at Andrews AFB,  on 01 May  2007.  The following  witnesses  also testified  on the  applicant's  behalf:  her  sister, YN2
:·- --- -- ----- -- ----- -:, USN, and her father, Mr.:-·-------- -- ----- -- -·:
'" - - - -- -- -- - -- -- -- - -- -·	...-------------------·
The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing:

Exhibit #5  Statement from The American Legion Military Review Boards Representative Exhibit #6  NIMH Pamphlet on Bipolar Disorder
Exhibit #7  Three character reference letters Exhibit #8  Civilian Medical Records Extract

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

FINDINGS:	The discharge is upgraded to honorable.   Change of reason and authority for discharge and change of reenlistment code are denied.

ISSUES:

Issue 1. Applicant contends she was not properly assessed for her behavioral and medical issues.  She admitted that she had seen Air Force Life Skills professionals for treatment and counseling about numerous mental health related issues for approximately  18 months prior to her discharge and that the treatment had helped her.  Upon her discharge, the Applicant began seeing her childhood medical doctor who had diagnosed her with depression prior to her entry on active duty.  He did not diagnose her with bipolar disorder or refer her for specialized psychiatric care tmtil late 2005.  She believed her subsequent diagnosis of having bipolar disorder in 2006 proved that the disorder also existed prior to her discharge, but was missed due to improper assessment while on active duty.  The medical records did not confirm whether the Life Skills professional (BSC) was a psychologist or a licensed clinical social worker.  There was no documentation in the medical records showing she was seen by a psychiatrist or that a psychiatrist countersigned any diagnosis of mental health conditions.  Despite this, the Board was not persuaded that the Applicant met all criteria for bipolar disorder while she was on active duty, particularly since no civilian medical doctor or psychiatrist diagnosed her with bipolar disorder until 2006.

Issue 2.  Applicant contends that her commander failed to recommend probation, rehabilitation (P&R) or rehabilitative transfer IAW AFI 36-3208, Chapter 7.  While it is true her commander failed to recommend P&R, it is clear he considered doing so, and that the option of P&R was discussed in the legal review and was presented as an option to the separation authority.  The records indicated the applicant received two Letters of Reprimand (with one of them being placed in an Unfavorable Information File), a Letter of Admonishment (LOA), and two Records of Individual Counseling (RIC) over the course of only 11 months. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change her negative behavior and that further time on active duty would not be conducive to the maintenance of good order and discipline in her unit.  The Board concluded the applicant's varied acts of misconduct were	
of such a nature and duration that it was reasonable for the commander and the separation authority to refuse
to offer her a period of probation and rehabilitation.	

Issue 3.  Applicant contends that her chain of command failed to reply to her statements in response to the first few infractions.  The first infractions noted in the file were a RIC and an LOA.  The Board found her command followed the normal course of action and took reasonable steps to convey expectations and feedback to the Applicant, including having her commander review and comment in writing on the matters noted in the RIC.  There is no requirement and it is not normal practice for commanders and NCOs in the Air Force to comment further in writing once a member responds to an LOA.  The command representative normally issues the LOA, provides the member with an opportunity to respond, and then decides whether to leave the action in place or rescind it once they have considered the response.  That is exactly what happened for the Applicant's LOA.  The record shows the NCO who issued the LOA reviewed her comments as did
her commander, admittedly, without further written comment.  In the collective experience of the Board, it would be the extremely rare case where an NCO or commander woul d write out and include their response
to a subordinate's response to their LOA.  Particularly with regard to LOAs, which are administrative actions at the "low threat" end of the spectrum, the Board found the Applicant's superiors were not required to, nor was it common Air Force practice to, create further documentation in this type of administrative action.  The Board found the Applicant did not meet her burden of proof to merit this issue playing any part in the  ultimate decisions in this case.

Issue 4.  Applicant contends her legal counsel and support were inadequate during the administrative discharge process.  The extent of the Applicant's argument is the barebones allegation in her counsel's letter that "a medical consideration should have been considered by ...her assigned JAG counsel."  She also believes it was an impropriety for the SJA's office to fail to catch her commander's error when he noted "NONE" in the entry for "Medical or other data meriting consideration" on the commander's letter recommending the Applicant's discharge.  No documentation beyond the discharge documents themselves or any testimony was offered to prove the Applicant's counsel failed to consider any medical issues.
Similarly, the Applicant's evidence and testimony were found insufficient to prove an impropriety or inequity existed as to her commander's discretionary decision to mark "NONE" on the entry for "medical or other data meriting consideration."

Issue 5.  Applicant contends that she continues to experience limited opportunities for employment and further education with a less than fully honorable discharge characterization.  She also cited her desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits as justification  for upgrade.  The Board was sympathetic to the impact the loss of these benefits was having on the applicant, but did not find it to be a matter of inequity or impropriety which contributed significantly to the decision to upgrade.  Despite this finding, for good cause shown and discussed below, the Applicant's discharge characterization will be upgraded to fully honorable.

Issue 6.  The applicant contends that she is a more mature person who is managing her diagnosed disability which was unnoticed and undiagnosed by military medical professionals.  Numerous documents and significant portions of testimony presented to the Board concerned the applicant's post-service activities and the diagnosis of her bipolar disorder in 2006.  Testimony and medical records established that her personal civilian family physician who had treated her for depression prior to her entry on active duty, did not treat  her for bipolar disorder or refer her to any specialist until over three years after she was discharged.  The
DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has held a good, steady job for over four years and was progressing and stable in her treatment of her disorder.  This issue was not overly persuasive to the Board's decision, but, for other reasons, found her discharge characterization should be changed to  honorable.

Issue 7.  Applicant contends that her quality of service deserves an honorable discharge characterization.
She states that her discharge did not take into account the good things she did while in the service. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by her performance reports, letters of recommendation, and other accomplishments.  They found the relatively minor nature and number of misconduct incidents was, in fact, outweighed by the positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance,

extracurricular involvements, and volunteer work over the course of her enlistment, so her discharge characterization should be changed to honorable.

As to the Applicant's contention that the reason (misconduct) for her discharge be changed to "Secretarial Authority", the Board found that the reason for her discharge was properly labeled misconduct since it met the standards described in AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.49 as minor disciplinary infractions.  Even though the Applicant may have had a sufficient diagnosis to have qualified for a discharge for mental health related reasons, language in the discharge instruction concerning conditions that interfere with military service (AFI 36-3208, para. 5.11) indicates that "discharge under this provision is not appropriate if the airman's record would support discharge for another reason such as misconduct."  Conversely, the scope of the paragraph allowing Airmen to be discharged for "minor disciplinary infractions" easily includes individuals, like the Applicant, who commit the types of minor misconduct involved in this case and a discharge for minor disciplinary infractions is consistent with the number of incidents of misconduct in which she had engaged. To change the discharge to Secretarial Authority would indicate that misconduct was not an appropriate reason for her discharge.  The Board concluded the reason for the discharge received by the applicant was appropriate.  Similarly, without changing the reason for discharge, no change in the RE code was appropriate.

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, in view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that there exists an adequate basis for upgrade of discharge, but not for changing the reason for discharge or the RE code. Thus the applicant's discharge characterization will be changed to honorable under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief