AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICIC Mli:MBli:R (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
..-----------------------'

GRADE

AMN

AFSN/SSAN

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

'

'	--------- ·'--	-+-----,,.-	1---''-" --- - - - -- - - - -- -·	-----1

-·

TYPE   GEN	x	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

YES	No
x

VOTE OF THE BOARD

MEMBER SITTING

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

HON	UEN
x

x x

UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

x
x

ISSUES

A94.06 A93.02

INDEX NUMBER

A94.10

EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD

A93.24 AOl.40 A94. 10

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

31 May 2007	FD-2006-00420
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE AlTACHED AIR fORCE DISCHARGE RllVlEW BOARD 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 applicant's request.

X - Upgrade
+ - Change RE Code
* - Change Reason and Authority

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------­	-

INDORSEM ENT
TO:	FROM:
SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPll AFB, TX 78150-4742

C7	DATE: 6/20/2007

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE Pl;RSONNl:L COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARll
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 RATTONALE	CASI'; NlJMBEK

FD-2006-00420	

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

The applicant  appeared  and testified  before  the Discharge  Review  Board  (DRB),  with  counsel,  Mr.l°·······:
---_-_-_-_-_1of the American Legion, at Andrews AFB on 31 May 2007. The following witnesses also testified-on· the a12pJj9_<!1).f  -   ehalf: Mr.  -- --- --- --- --- the applicant's father, Ms. :···············: the applicant's mother, and
I	•••••••••••••••	- ••••••••••••••
SrA-------------- the applicant's twin brother.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit #5: American Legion Statement
Exhibit #6: Medical Record Documents
Exhibit #7: Character Letter from applicant's mother

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

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge is approved.  Change of reason and authority for discharge, and change ofreenlistment code are denied.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by applicant substantiates an impropriety that would justify a change  of discharge. However, based upon the evidence and testimony provided by applicant, the Board finds the characterization of the applicant's service to be inequitable.

Issues.  Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh, citing the ongoing treatment he received for a medical condition, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, which affected the quality of his duty performance.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article  15, three Letters of Reprimand, and three Letters of Counseling for minor disciplinary infractions and for twice failing his block examinations.  After reviewing medical documents confi rming the applicant's diagnosis and treatment for ADHD, the Board concluded that the applicant's medical condition likely contributed significantly to his inability to perform certain critical tasks essential to achieving certification in his chosen career field.

Applicant also contends that his youth and maturity at the time of his enlistment contributed to the administrative infractions that resulted in his discharge.  The applicant also contends that he has now matured and has integrated the Air Force core values into making "better choices and decisions" on a daily basis.  The Board was also pleased to see the valuable contributions he has made, since his discharge, as a self-employed contractor in the technical engineering field for a reputable cable and wireless
communications company.  The Board determined that the member's successes after leaving military service	
reflect favorably upon his character and ability to overcome adversity despite the characterization of his
discharge.  Additionally, recognizing the importance of mentorship of our new Airmen, the DRB further determined that had the applicant been assigned an "official sponsor" at the time he requested assistance during in-processing into his newly assigned organization the cascade of events resulting in cutting his career short may not have occurred.

With reference to the applicant's contention that his legal representation was inadequate, the DRB acknowledges the varied work schedules of Area Defense Counsels may involve multiple taskings, while provide legal defense covering multiple military installations.  Thus, it is conceivable that the applicant's defense counsel did not spend the optimal amount of attention, as perceived by the appl icant, necessary in preparing a proper defense in his case.  Nonetheless, the DRB found no evidence of gross negligence on the	

part of the applicant's legal counsel to the extent that independently justifies a change in his discharge characterization.

The Board also acknowledged the appl icant's high motivation to re-enter military service, citing a desire to serve alongside his twin brother, an active duty Air Force member who has twice deployed to combat operations.  However, in view of the applicant's reported difficulties experienced both during junior high school, due to ADHD, and the re-emergence of the disorder so soon after entering military service, the Board concluded that the applicant's clinical diagnosis poses an unreasonable risk for future unexpected exacerbations that coul d adversely affect his wel l-being and his unit's mission; particularly under the harsh operational conditions and unrelenting mental stressors confronting today's Air and Space Expeditionary Force.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive  requirements of the discharge regulation and was withi n 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 the overall quality of applicant's service is more accurately reflected as Honorable. Thus,  the  appl icant's  discharge characterization should be changed to Honorable under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief