AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSN/SSAN
; ECEASED) CAPT
TYPE
X PERSONAL APPEARANCE RECORD REVIEW
RE NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
me _[ ne MA RED 3 Mrs. SD. J
(Parents of Deceased Applicant)
rs Pep S20; A e RH
MEMBERS SITTING HON GEN UOTHC OTHER DENY
X*
xe
X+
x*
xX*
ISSUES INDEX NUMBER d
A94.06 A63,02 1 | ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2 | APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 | LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
HEARING DATE CASE NUMBER 4 | BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
21 OCT 03 FD1999-00204-A COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

 

 

Tt eee yes ey

"REMARKS
Case heard at HQ ARPC, Denver, Colorado

Change in Reason for Discharge to Secretarial Authority*.
Change in Reason for Discharge to Personality Disorder+.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board.

SIGNATURE OF BOARD PRESIDENT

 

SAF/MIBR : SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL

 

550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3" FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002
AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 (EF-V2) Previous edition will be used.

nr Sill
° CASE NUMBER
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD-99-00204-A

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable.

The applicant’s parents, Mrs. ORG and Mr. SR next of kin, appeared before

the Discharge Review Board on behalf of the applicant, a Air Reserve Personnel Center; Denver,
Colorado, on 21 Oct 03, without counsel. The reason for the applicant’s absence is he is now deceased.

   

       
 

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing:

   

Exhibit 6: Mr.4@aNINB Activities and Accomplishments, May 1972-May 1984
Exhibit 7: Summary of Mr@QQRMRAMDA ccomplishments in Later Years

Exhibit 8: Closing Summary Statement for the Board
Exhibit 9: Disabled American Veterans Letter, 11 July 2000

Exhibit 10: Correspondence from D: ene letters)
Exhibit 11: Sleep Health Centers at National Jewish Medical & Research Center Correspondence (4 letters)

Exhibit 12: Research Article: One Explanation of Nef Gene Behavior (Authored by. Applicant)
Exhibit 13: Research Article: Retroviral Antibody Binding of the MHC Class 2 Molecule in HIV Infection

 
       
   
   
      

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

    
    

FINDINGS: The discharge is upgraded to Honorable, and the reason for discharge is changed to
Secretarial Authority.

     
 

  

The Board finds evidence of record and that provided by the applicant’s parents, substantiates an
impropriety that justifies an upgrade of the discharge. It is apparent from review of the case file that the
command authorities may not have believed that Court-Martial was the appropriate forum to address the
appellant’s misconduct. Given this inference and other evidence provided, the Board concluded that the
applicant’s service should not have been handled via the RILO process, but rather through other
administrative procedures. The Board concluded that it is unlikely that an administrative discharge board
would have characterized the applicant’s service as any less than General and could very likely have
characterized it as Honorable. Therefore, the Board agreed that the characterization should be upgraded to
Honorable.

 
   
     
   
   
     
 
  

  

ISSUES: The applicant received an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge —- Voluntary Resignation for
the Good of the Service. The applicant’s principal issue, as articulated through his parents, is the
applicant’s discharge characterization was too harsh and does not represent an accurate assessment of the
applicant’s military service.

    
     
  

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was not consistent with the
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. Specifically, the discharge authority’s
decision to restrict available options in the member’s case to either a trial by Court-Martial or by
Resignation was improper and raised significant concerns the member not offered the full due process
available under the law.

      
     
 

The applicant’s characterization for discharge should be changed to Honorable under the provisions of Title
10, USC 1553, and the reason for separation changed to Secretarial Authority.

     
    
 

 
 

Attachment:
Examiner's Brief
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD

ANDREWS AFB, MD
FD99-00204-A

el (Former CAPT) (REHEARING)

1. MATTER UNDER REVIEW: Appl rec’d a UOTH Dish fr USAF 92/09/30
UP AFR 36-12, Ch 2, Table 2-8, Rule 1 (Voluntary Resignation for
the Good of the Service - In Lieu of Court Marital). Appeals for
HON Disch.

2. OTHER FACTS:
a. See attached cy of Examiner’s Brief dtd 99/05/10.

b. The AFDRB reviewed case on 99/06/09 (non-appearance w/o
counsel) & concluded applicant’s discharge should not be changed.

3. BASIS ADVANCED FOR REHEARING: Appl (DD Fm 293) dtd 99/07/07.
(Change Discharge to Honorable)

ISSUES ATTACHED TO BRIEF.
Atch
1. Examiner's Brief.

2. Applicant’s Issues.
3. Supporting Documents.

00/01/04/ai
PDIP COKS Koh

FD-99-00204
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
ANDREWS AFB, MD

sa (Former CAPT) (MISSING DOCUMENTS)

1. MATTER UNDER REVIEW: Appl rec’d a UOTH Disch fr USAF 92/09/30 UP AFR 36-12,
Chapter 2, Tabie 2-8, Rule 1 (Voluntary Resignation for the Good of the Service -
In Lieu of Court Martial). Appeals for Honorable Disch.

2. BACKGROUND: .

a. DOB: 61/07/18. Enlmt Age: 26 8/12. Disch Age: 31 2/12. Educ: BAC/MAS.
AFQT: N/A M-Unknown, A-Unknown, G-Unknown, E-Unknown. PAFSC: 9166 - Aerospace
Physiologist. DAS: 92/02/13.

b. Prior Sv: AFRes 88/04/04 - 88/06/06 (2 months 3 days) (Inactive).

3. SERVICE UNDER REVIEW:

a. Apptd to ist Lt, ResAF & Ordered to EAD 88/06/07. Svd: 4 Yrs 3 Mo 24
Das, all AMS.

b. Grade Status: Captain - 90/05/05.
c. Time Lost: none.

d. Art 15’s: none.

e. CM: none.

f. Record of SV: 88/06/07 89/01/07 Peterson AFB MS (Semiannual)
89/01/08 89/07/07 Peterson AFB MS_= (Semiannual)
89/07/08 90/01/07 Peterson AFB MS _= (Semiannual)
90/01/08 90/07/07 Peterson AFB MS (Semiannual)
90/07/08 91/07/07 Peterson AFB MS (Annual)
(Discharged from Presidio of Monterey)

g. Awards & Decs: AFAM, AFOUA W/1 OLC, NDSM, AFLSAR, AFTR.

h. Stmt of Sv: TMS: (4) Yrs (5) Mos (27) Das
TAMS: (4) Yrs (3) Mos (24) Das

4. BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW: Appln (DD Fm 293) dtd 99/03/16.
(Change Discharge to Honorable)

Issues and Personal Statement attached to Brief.
5 ‘ | PR97- POZOK ig

FD-99-00204
ATCHS -
1. .Personal Statement.
2. Issues.
3. Legal Review.
4. List of Supporting Documents and Enclosures.

99/05/10/ia
/ ee [DP P-K20 3-44

 

ene, . DP Form 293, Section 7,
Supporting Document Number 1, Personal Statement, Page 1 of 4

Personal Statement

The purpose of this statement is to provide the background
information necessary to upgrade my discharge. My initial discharge
is based upon the fact that I was absent from my unit while
awaiting discharge.

My service began as a Physiological Training Officer with the rank
of lst Lieutenant (Peterson AFB, September 1988-August 1991). While
serving at Peterson AFB, I noticed several changes in my health
that could not be explained by medical providers. Eventually my
condition became sufficiently. disabling that I sought help from the
military medical establishment.

My medical evaluation was self-initiated because I found myself
unable to participate in previously enjoyable activities such as
running, hiking, and golfing. Prior to joining the Air Force, I
competed in a local 5-kilometer race in my hometown. After the
first mile, I led the race with a time of four minutes and 45.
seconds, finishing in fifth place. At the time of my medical
evaluation, I could not even complete a quarter of a mile without
stopping to rest. In addition to running, I also enjoyed playing
golf.

The medical evaluation was requested after a golfing experience
with my Dad at the Air Force Academy. Normally, I walk 18 holes
carrying a large golf bag. When I golfed with my Dad on this day,
I was able to play nine holes, but only with the assistance of an
electric golf cart. This experience was frustrating, confusing and
frightening. Soon afterward, I abandoned sporting activities
because I had only enough stamina to do my job.

My Flight Surgeon referred me to a physician whose medical
specialty was Infectious Disease. After the initial consultation
with this doctor, he agreed to perform laboratory tests,
psychological tests and consultations necessary to determine the
cause of my symptoms.

In addition, I expressed concern to this physician that I might
have a relatively unknown and misunderstood illness. called Chronic
Fatigue Syndrome (CFS). The Infectious Disease Specialist expressed
reservations about the legitimacy of this disease entity. However,
he did agree in writing to contact authorities who were performing
research and treating patients with this disorder.

Document 1, Page 1
. | VF POROK YA

DP Form 293, Section 7,
Supporting Document Number ° 1, Personal Statement, Page 2 of 4

The results of my medical evaluation were inconclusive. No
diagnoses were made for which I received medical treatment.
In addition, the Infectious Disease Specialist did not fulfill his
contractual agreement to consult an authority in the field of

_ Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. His decision not to do so, was supported
by my Flight Surgeon and my immediate supervisor.

Although I was returned to flying status shortly after my medical
evaluation, I continued to struggle with my health. Difficulty with
completing basic job related tasks, such as speaking in a classroom
_and reading accident reports, led me to aeek civilian medical help.

Physiological Training Officers on flying status in the Air Force
have a legal obligation to coordinate their health care treatment
with the Flight Surgeon. The Flight Surgeon is responsible for the

health care of air crew and support staff who fly in altitude
chambers.

After several months of treatment from a civilian provider, I felt
better able to perform the duties of my job. However, by seeking
civilian medical help, I was now breaking Air Force regulations
regarding medical treatment of members on flying status. My action
to seek civilian medical help without knowledge of the Flight
Surgeon could have led to a reprimand or discharge from the
service. This dilemma caused me tremendous worry and eventually had
a very negative impact on my health problem.

My service at Peterson AFB was successfully completed from
September 1988 to August 1991. Despite my illness and personal
worries surrounding the treatment of the illness, I feel that I
served my unit well. During this time period, my Physiological
training unit received "Excellent" and "Outstanding" ratings. In
addition, I was promoted to Captain and received the Air Force
Achievement Medal for meritorious service (Enclosure Number 11,

Certificate of Discharge from Active Duty, undated, 1 page,
highlighted)..

My success at Peterson AFB was due largely to the very light
teaching and work schedule at my unit. An average week included six
hours of teaching and a two-hour flight in the altitude chamber.

This light schedule permitted me to rest and avoid aggravating my
illness.

In the spring of 1991, I received orders to attend the Defense
Language Institute (DLI, Monterey, CA) for Spanish language
training. The course work began in September 91 and required six

hours of daily instruction, followed by 2-3 hours of homework each
night.

Document 1, Page 2
S F- C0 04g

eneeneehmnmiianmenm, vp Form 293, Section 7,

Supporting Document Number 1, Personal Statement Page 3 of 4

The pace of this schedule caused a severe relapse of my condition.
After two weeks of classroom training, I was physically unable to
continue my studies.

Unfortunately, I overestimated my physical and cognitive abilities
with respect to completing this assignment. Only a few years
earlier, I had successfully completed a demanding Master's degree
program. My prior academic success and limited experience in

managing my illness led me to accept an assignment that was well
beyond my physical capacity to achieve.

Prior to accepting the DLI assignment, I had received a specific
request to do so from the Chief of my career field. In retrospect,

I should have tendered my resignation from the service rather than
accept the DLI assignment.

However, I also felt that I probably could not function for forty
hours per week in a civilian job. Therefore, the DLI assignment was
accepted hoping that I could survive it for nine months: The work

load of my next assignment after the DLI training would have been
similar to that of Peterson AFB.

Having moved from Colorado Springs to Monterey, I was without a
medical provider for my illness. My former civilian provider in
Colorado Springs continued to provide some assistance, but
increasingly I was under pressure to find a new provider who could
treat my illness. The burden of trying to find a new civilian
physician familiar with my condition strongly contributed to a
decline in my job performance.

During my stay at the DLI, I also attempted to find a military
physician who might be familiar with my illness. If successful, I
felt that such a physician might be willing to explain my condition
to the Flight Surgeon at my next duty station. This critical action
would have been a first step in getting a flying waiver for the
medications I was taking for my illness. Unfortunately, my attempts
at achieving this goal were unsuccessful.

In summary, I regret failing to accomplish my assigned duty.
Additionally, I regret that my superiors and co-workers at the
Defense Language Institute interpreted my initial classroom failure
as a behavioral or disciplinary problem. This interpretation of my
behavior led to further misunderstandings and reprimands.

Document 1, Page 3
77 - COLLIS

: DP Form 293, Section 7,
Supporting Document Number 1, Personal Statement, Page 4 of 4

Having never received reprimands or disciplinary action during my
first three years in the service, I felt alienated and isolated
from the command leadership after receiving these reprimands.
During this time, I developed a chemical sensitivity to ammonia
cleaning products that were commonly used at the DLI. This
sensitivity prevented me from safely operating my automobile.

One reprimand that I received was a direct result of my physical
response to ammonia cleaning agents. Although I reported to a
military hospital after this incident, I was still reprimanded for
Going so. This action by my commander seriously damaged our

relationship and strongly influenced the incident leading to my
AWOL status.

Please consider these circumstances of my service in your
consideration of discharge upgrade. It is my feeling that I served
the Air Force honorably despite having an illness "that was
essentially ignored by military providers.

Sincerely,

 

Document 1, Page 4
77 POL OBY

senna, 0p Form 293, Section 8,

Supporting Document Number 2, Issues, Page 1 of 4

Issues

1. A memorandum was utilized for the purpose of finalizing the
character of my discharge. The title of this document is
"Memorandum For SAF/MIB" (Supporting Document Number 3, Memorandum
For SAF/MIB, dated 25 September 1992, 4 pages). There are a number
of inaccuracies in this memorandum addressed below (a-i).

~

a) In paragraph four of the memorandum, there is a statement which
reads "Comment in the case file indicates respondent was

subsequently seen by an immunologist but refused to give blood
necessary for blood tests."

This information is inaccurate and cannot be supported by notation
or documentation from the immunologist who requested the blood
work. This comment refers to an order that I received from my
commander upon reporting to duty one morning. Upon arrival to the
hospital that’ same morning, I was questioned by the medical
technician about whether I had avoided food for the last 12 hours.
Since the order had been given only hours before, I didnot meet
the conditions necessary to draw the blood. My commander was
informed that I could give blood on the next day by fasting after
1800 hours. Still, he insisted that I was disobeying his order to
give blood that morning.

b) Paragraph five reads "In January 1992, the commander became so
frustrated with attempting to find a work situation for the

respondent that he told him he did not have to report to work each
day. However, the commander directed him to contact either the unit
commander or unit executive officer telephonically each duty day
not later than 0800 to see if he was required to report for duty."

This information is inaccurate. The unit commander was aware that
I was struggling with a chronic health problem. He received a

letter from my civilian physician. (Enclosure Number 1, eee
.O. Letter, dated 10Dec91, 1 page). The unit commander
ei

require my presence at the unit during duty hours.

c) The bottom of paragraph four reads "he refused to return to
another work assignment because he contended he had a reaction to

the cleaning agents used by the janitorial staff and, therefore,
the environment was unhealthy for him."

Document 2, Page 1
+ 7 ~ ART

DP Form 293, Section 8,
Supporting Document Number 2, Issues, Page 2 of 4

My reaction to the cleaning agents is verified in my medical
records (Enclosure Number 2, Chemical Exposure Reaction, dated
14Nov91, 1 page) and (Enclosure Number 3, Cleaning Agent
Inhalation, dated 22Nov91, 1 page).

dad) The bottom of paragraph five reads "On January 30, 1992
respondent spoke to the commander who gave him a direct order to
report to the unit within 30 minutes."

This statement is not an entirely accurate account of the incident.
The court record of the pretrial conference indicates the commander
used tactics of threat and intimidation while giving the order by
telephone. He stated that I was AWOL and the OSI (Office of Special
Investigations) had a warrant out for me. In addition, he would not

answer when I asked what was going to happen when I reported to the
unit.

This was a reasonable question deserving of a straight forward
answer. The commander’s failure to communicate with me under this
circumstance strongly influenced my next action, which was to leave

the area. At issue, is whether the commander’s actions served to
aggravate the incident.

eé) Paragraph five states "Respondent disobeyed this order and did

not return until apprehended by civil and military authorities on
February 21,1992."

This statement ie completely false. There was no "apprehension." In
full uniform, I appeared in the commander’s office on February 21.
Two unit security officers showed up at my local motel room with
two police officers. Since the unit security officers did not have
authority outside the base, my willingness to accompany them
indicates cooperation rather than apprehension. There is no

question that I could have legally walked away from both military
and civilian officers without being detained.

£) The bottom of paragraph five states "The commander also directed
a medical and mental health evaluation which was completed on an
in-patient basis from February 24 - April 3, 1992."

This statement suggests the commander acted responsibly regarding
my health. However, the presiding judge at my pretrial hearing
determined there were sufficient grounds for me to pursue a charge
of illegal pretrial confinement against the unit commander.

Document 2, Page 2
. PPO Z2OGH

DP Form 293, Section 8,
Supporting Document Number 2, Issues, Page 3 of 4

The unit commander did not utilize the available mental health
professionals stationed at nearby Fort Ord to evaluate my mental
condition. Instead, he himself evaluated my mental condition and
ordered me to the emergency room at Travis AFB. The unit commander
then proceeded to manipulate the medical system by telephoning and
attempting to influence the emergency room secretary. The emergency
room doctor asked me how I felt, and he was told that I felt fine.

This doctor, then discussed my recent actions with the squadron
commander and security officer. The doctor then informed me that I
was being admitted to the inpatient mental health ward "because I

was having difficulty making good decisions." This was a reference
to my previous AWOL status.

The medical record does not state that I was admitted to inpatient
status for any medical reason whatsoever. This was clearly an

illegal pretrial confinement as suggested by the presiding judge at
my pretrial hearing.

g) Paragraph six begins with "Respondent is convinced he suffers

from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) and he’s obsessed with his
medical condition."

One important issue regarding my discharge upgrade, is whether I
actually had this illness while I was in the Air Force. Enclosed is
medical summary from a licensed neuropsychologist who specializes
in the diagnosis and treatment of Chronic. Fatigue Syndrome.
(Supporting Document Number 4 , Dr. : ‘Letter, dated

1March99, 6 pages). The letter states that I did have this illness
while I was in the service.

h) Paragraph six states "He had a complete evaluation for CFS at
his previous duty station and medical personnel could find no
confirmation or support for that diagnosis."

This statement is not accurate. The medical record clearly
documents a written agreement for such an evaluation, but the
consultation necessary to complete this evaluation never occurred.

Document 2, Page 3
PP~ PAR Od

Geeeregggi DD Form 293, Section 8,
Supporting sument Number 2, Issues, Page 4 of 4

The contract between myself and Dr. (Lt. Colone] )