. 

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAI,) 

GRADE 

AFSNISSAN 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD 

I 

I 

MEMBER SITTING 

HTAKING  DATE 

09 Sep 2004 

CASE NUMBER 

FD-2004-00238 

Case heard at Washington, D.C. 

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to 
submit an application to the AFBCMR. 

SAFIMRRR 
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742 

v 

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 

SECRETARY OF TEE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCU. 
AIR EORC'E DISCHARGE R F M E W  BOARD 
1535 COMMAND DR. EE WING, 3RD FLOOR 
ANDREWS AFB. MD 20761-7002 

Previous edition will be  used 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE 

CASE NUMBER 

FD-2004-00238 

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but declined to 
exercise this right. 

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

FINDINGS:  Upgrade  of  discharge,  change  of  rcason  and  authority  for  discharge,  and  change  of 
reenlistment code are denied. 

The  Board  finds  that  neither  tlic  cvidence  of  record  nor  that  provided  by  the  applicant  substantiates  an 
inequity or impropriety that would justify  a change of discharge. 

Issue  1.  Applicant  tendered  his  resignation  in  licu  of  further  administrative discharge proceedings.  Thc 
applicant's records document  clear evidence of conduct totally  incompatible with  military service.  He had 
multiple incidents of failure to go, making false official statcmcnts, absenting himsclf from his unit without 
authority,  and was twice  drunk while  enrolled in  an alcohol rehabilitation  program.  All  of these incidents 
occurred within  a  10-month period,  thc last two while  in an alcohol rehabilitation program,  as noted.  It is 
Air Force policy that personnel  who do not respond favorably to rehabilitation  be considered lor separation. 
Additionally,  the  applicant's  misconduct  was  of  a  very  serious nature  and  members who  commit  acts  of 
misconduct,  even  under the  influence  of alcohol,  are held  accountable  for their  actions.  Furthermore,  the 
number of incidents of this  scvcrity would  normally result  in a service characterization of under other than 
honorable,  but  mitigating  factors were  taken  into consideration  at the time of the  discharge.  Member had  ' 
served admirably for over 6 years before his misconduct began.  Circumstances of his alcoholism, while not 
excusing his conduct, were also viewed as mitigating.  Thus accepting his resignation  allowed his service to 
be  appropriately  characterized.  Accordingly,  the  Secretary of the Air Force's  designee,  who was  aware of 
the  option  to  approve  an  honorable  discharge,  determined  that  a  general  discharge  (under  honorable 
conditions)  was  more  appropriate  due to  the  seriousness  and  repetitive,  deteriorating nature  of member's 
misconduct.  No inequity or impropriety was found in this discharge in the course of the records review. 

Issue 2.  Applicant contends discharge was improper and inequitable because it was too harsh.  He contends 
his  chain  of command  failed  to  properly  recognize  and  treat  his  depression  because  discharging him  was 
more "convenient."  Applicant claims his commander overreacted to his (member's)  disappointing behavior 
and wanted to minimize complaints and "placate"  staff members by discharging him instead of treating him, 
thus  an  abuse  of command  authority.  The  commander remained  un-persuaded  to  take  another  course  of 
action.  Unfortunately, applicant's medical records were unavailable to the Board for review, so it could not 
be ascertained whether he was offered treatment or counseling  for his claimed depression, or not, and if so, 
what type.  Nevertheless,  individuals who commit acts of misconduct under the influence of alcohol and 1 or 
depression, are still held accountable for those actions.  The record did not provide any substantive evidence 
that  member was  singled  out.  Nor did  applicant  offer specific  evidence that  each of his  infractions was  a 
result  of arbitrary  and  capricious  acts  or personality  conflicts.  The  DRB  opined  that  through  the  unit's 
extensive  rehabilitative  actions,  and  member's  multiple  involvements  in  various  alcohol  rehabilitation 
programs,  the  applicant  had  ample  opportunities  to  change  his  negative  behavior  and  was  unwilling  or 
unable  to  do so.  The Board  concluded his repeated  misconduct  was  a significant departure from  conduct 
expected of all military members.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found 
to be appropriate. 

Issue 3.  The discharge regulations clearly gave his chain of command authority to recommend 
administratively discharging him based on unsuitability for further military service as a result of his serious 
misconduct.  Facts and circumstances are diflerent in each action and must be judged  on a case-by-case 
basis.  In doing so, a commander must considcr the seriousness of the misconduct and how a member's 
retention might affect good order, discipline, and morale, not just  the member's  past record of service or 
rehabilitative potential.  They rriust focus on conduct during the current period of service, and also consider 
factors such as the member's  age, length of service, grade, aptitude, and the standards of acceptable conduct 
and performance.  The regulation provides for circumstances wherein a single incident of misconduct may 
provide the basis for characterizing service.  It should be noted that administrative separation is an action 
that severs the military status of an individual and characterizes his service, but is not the sane as 
punishment rendered by a civilian judicial proceeding or a punitive discharge rendered by a court martial. 
Comnlission of several serious offenses clearly established applicant's  unsuitability for further Air Forcc 
service.  All required procedures were properly followed in the applicant's case. 

lssue 4.  Applicant  notes  he  was  having personal  difficulties  resolving  ethics  he  had  learned  in  his  legal 
education  and  while  serving  as  a  Staff  .Judge  Advocate,  and  those  being  taught  in  his  medical  education 
program.  The applicant failed to clearly demonstrate, however, how this stress was the cause for each of his 
incidents  of misconduct.  While  it  is  understandable  that  a  member  experiencing personal  problems  has 
additional  stress,  the  applicant's problems  did  not  appear to bc unique.  Nor was there evidence he sought 
assistance from available base  agencies  such as the  Chaplain, Family Support Center, or the Mental Health 
staff to  assist him  in  coping  with  this  stress.  Thus the Board  finds this  issue of insufficient  mitigation  to 
warrant an upgrade. 

Tssue 5.  Applicant states that his discharge did not adequately take into account the good things he did while 
in the service. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty perfomlance as documented by his performance 
reports, letters of recommendation and other accomplishments.  The Board further noted that member's 
many laudatory accomplishments during his career had in fact been considered before final decision was 
rendered as to characterization of his service.  The DRR rccognized the fact that the applicant had served 
over 7 years total service before the discharge was initiated, but concluded the seriousness of the misconduct 
offset the positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance, then and now.  The Board concluded the 
discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were its basis. 

Issue 6 applies to the applicant's post-service activities.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was 
doing well and has a good job.  However, this does not provide a basis of inequity or impropriety on which 
to justify  an upgrade, nor was one found in the course of the records review.  The Board concluded the 
applicant's  misconduct appropriately characterized his term of service. 

If he can provide additional documented information to substantiate his issues, the applicant should consider 
exercising his right to make a personal appearance before the Board.  If he should choose to exercise this 
right to a personal appearance hearing, the applicant should be prepared to provide the DRB with factual 
evidence of the inequity or impropriety and any exemplary post-service accomplishments as well as any 
other contributions to the community. 

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 
upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed. 

Attachment:  Examiner's Brief 

.. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AXE?  FORCE 

AIR  FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 

ANDREWS AFB,  MD 

(Former MAJ)  (HGH MAJ) 

1.  MATTER  UNDER REVIEW:  Appl rec'd a GEN Disch fr Andrews AFB, MD on 24 Aug 02 
UP AFR 36-2, Chapter 3, para 3-7d (Resignation In Lieu of Involuntary Discharge). 
Appeals for Honorable Discharge, and to Change the Reason and Authority for 
Discharge. 

2.  BACKGROUND: 

a. DOB: 19 Jan 56.  Enlmt Age: 23 6/12.  Disch Age: 36 7/12. Educ: 

Doctorate. AFQT: N/A.  A-N/A,  E-N/A,  G-N/A,  M-N/A. PAFSC: 09326 -  General 
Practice Physician. DAS: 13 Jun 91. 

b.  Prior S v :   (1) MJG  26 Jul 79 -  6 Jun 80  (10 months 11 days) (Inactive). 

(2) Appointed 2Lt in USAFRes 18 Dec 80.  Ordered to active 
duty 24 Mar 81.  Svd: 6 yrs 7 months 29 days, of which AMS  is 6 yrs 4 months 23 
days.  1Lt -  Unknown.  Capt -  24 Mar 81.  Maj  -  1 Jul 87.  O E R s :   1,1,1,1,1,1,1. 

3.  SERVICE UNDER  REVIEW: 

a.  Ordered to EAD  as Maj 13 Jun 91. Svd: 1 Yrs 2 Mo 11 Das, all AMS. 

b.  Grade Status:  None. 

c.  Time Lost:  None. 

d.  Art 15's:  (1) 2 Jul 92, Andrews AFB, MD -  Article 86.  You, did, on 

or about 21 Jun 92, without authority, fail to go at the 
time prescribed to your appointed place of duty, to wit: 
Building 1050, Ward 4B.  Forfeiture of $300.00 pay per 
month for two months.  (Appeal/Denied) (No mitigation) 

( 2 )   13 Mar 92, Andrews AFB, MD  -  Article 86.  You, did, on 

or about 20 Oct 91, without authority, fail to go at the 
time prescribed to your appointed place of duty, to wit: 
Building 1050, as the surgery intern on-call.  Article 
86.  You, did, on or about 0730 hours on 28 Feb 92, 
without authority, absent yourself from your unit, to 
wit: Malcolm Grow USAF Medical Center, and did remain so 
absent until on or about 0900 hours, 2 Mar 9 2 .   Article 
133.  You did, on or about 11 Nov 91, with intent to 

ly and dishonorably ma 
false statement, to w 

was known by you to be false, said conduct unbecoming an 
officer and gentleman.  Forfeiture of $900.00 pay per 

which statement was totally false and 

month for two months.  (No appeal) (No mitigation) 

e.  Additional:  (Examiner's Note: The following infractions are listed in 

the Notification Memorandum). 

1. Between o/a 30 Jul 91 &  o/a 27 Aug 91 -  Failure to go. 
2. At divers times, between o/a 23 Oct 91 &  o/a 19 Nov 91 - 

3. Between o/a 23 Oct 91 &  o/a 19 Nov 91 -  False official 

Failure to go. 

statements. 

4 .   On or about 11 Nov 91 -  False official statement. 
5. On or about 12 May 92, was,  while enrolled in an alcohol 

rehabilitation program, drunk. 

6. On or about L  Jun 92, was, while enrolled in an alcohol 

rehabilitation program, drunk. 

f.  CM:  None. 

g.  Record of SV: None. 

h.  Awards &  Decs:  MSM ~ / 1  OLC, AFCM, AFAM,  NDSM W/1 OLC, AFOUA ~ / 2  OLCS, 

AFOSSTR, AFLSAR W/1 OLC, SAEMR W / 1   BS, AFTR. 

i.  Stmtof S v :   TMS:  ( 8 )   Yrs  ( 8 )   Mos  (22) Das 

TAMS:  (7) Yrs  (7) Mos  (5) Das 

4 .   BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW:  Appln  (DD  Fm 293) dtd 24 Jun 04. 

(Change Discharge to Honorable, and Change the Reason and Authority for 

Discharge) 

ISSUES ATTACHED TO BRIEF. 

ATCH 
1. Applicant's Issues. 
2. Justification. 
3 .   Letters &  Documentation. 
4 .   U.S. Government Service Documentation. 

June 23,2004 

S AFMRBR 
550-C Street West, Suite 40 
Randolph AFl3, TX 78 150-4742 

Re: Item 6 (Application for the review of discharge) 

Dear Members of the Board: 

This letter is submitted to you as an attachment to my  application for the review of my 
discharge from the Air Force of August 24, 1992, and as Item 6 of DD Form 293. 

I hereby request the Discharge Review Board (DRB) change my discharge from 
'TRneraVUnder Honorable Conditions" to "Honorable,"  change the reason for discharge 
to "Convenience of the Government," and change my reenlistment code.  I request these 
changes, as I believe: 

The reason for discharge and, therefore, the characterization, were improper because  . 
of errors in fact (undisclosed and undiscovered facts including a failure to treat the 
depression I suffered from during my internship year) and errors in appropriate 
discharge procedures. 
. 
Even if proper, the discharge reason and characterization were inequitable for not 
only undisclosed and undiscovered facts and errors in procedures, but also because of 
the nature of my service to the United States before and after the discharge. 

Also included with my application are the following: 

U 

Tab I11 "Supporting Letters and Documentation" -- A document entitled 
"Memorandum for SAF/MIB" dated 7 Aug 1992; this document summarizes the. 
reasoning for the discharge.  Apparently, SAF/MIB, then SAFMRB, relied on this 
document when deciding to discharge me.  I recognize the document only 
summarizes the M Personnel Board's analysis of my discharge case file. 
Nonetheless, this document contains errors and omissions that warrant a change in the 
reason and character of the discharge.  The author, a staff member of the secretary of 
the Air Force Personnel Council, provided [this document to me with the permission 
of SAFMRB .] 
Tab III "Supporting Letters and Documentation" -- Five review letters from 
individuals who were parties to the events of  1991-2 described in the above document 
and individuals who treated me after leaving the Air Force, along with letters from 
individuals who knew me before and after 1991 -2, support my application. 

i  Page 2 

Tab IV "US  Government Service" -- Materials concerning my professional activities 
since 1992 that attest to my continuous and substantial service to the United States. 
Tab V "Community Servicew-- Materials concerning my personal attivities since 
1992 that attest to my community involvement and service. 

I believe the evidence I have attached shows that my discharge was based on improperly 
undisclosed and undiscovered facts, including a failure to treat the depression I suffered 
from during my internship year, improper command influence, and multiple 
administrative errors that prevented a fair review of the proposed discharge by anyone 
including SAFMIB . 

Upon review of the events of  1991 -2, it appears cle 
Commander, attributed my aberrant, out-of-character behavior solely to alcohql abuse 

the Medical Center 

was a sy~nptom. 
well as my 
ch subscqucyitiy 

As I stated then, and as demonstrated by the letters attached from my subsequent treating 
physicians, I suffered from depression during this period.  As now recognized formally, 
bhysicians are particularly likely to treat their own depression with alcohol especially 
when they cannot or do not receive adequate physiological treatment.  (See JAMA, June 
18,2003; 289(23): 3 161 -3 166.) Indeed, the approach today would be to recognize that 
the drinking is a reflection of the depression and to treat both as I requested in 1992. In 
short, rather treat me appropriately as both requested and indicate 
discharge was more convenient. 

decided that 

sdiagnosis in 1992, it should be noted both 
elieve I was a candidate for Alcohol Rehabilitation, 

be treated for depression. 

ion was aggravated by alcohol abuse.  Nonetheless, my 
should have recognized this symptom of depression for what it 
was,  since it is a somewhat common occurrence among physicians that has been more 

n recent years (See JAMA, June 18,2003 issue).  One can speculate as 
isdiagnosed my condition and decided not 
e me.  I suggest it may have been a combinatio 

some ways was one of my m 
, and together we worked 
At the time of my disch 

have overreacted to my behavior, 
eason was his desire to minimize complaints and placate members of  his staff 

Page 3 

by deciding not to treat my depression, but discharge me--an improper use of his 
command authority as he was not my treating physician.  In any event, his reaction to my 
depression was in error. 

I 

This second reason for my coinmander's decision to discharge me, rather than treat m 

I draw the DRB's  attention to the attached letter from 

i6 
. 

n his letter, the decision made b 
in part in response to my co 
It is recognized now (See 
ovember 12,2002, page B1 "Doctors Question Use of 
Dead or Dying Patients for Training.") and was clear to me in 1992 that experimentation 
on patients without consent and the frequent disregard of patient rights was wrong, even 
if part of physician education.  When the Board considers my depression, its causes, and 
its symptoms, the Board should recognize the depression was aggravated by the stress I 
felt in the training environment at Malcolm Grow Medical Center (MGMC).  This stress 
grew out of the conflict between my legal education and my experiences as the medical- 
law consultant at the Wilford Hall Medical Center and how and what I was being taught 
in my medical education about this type of experimentation. 

decision to discharge me 

influence and administrative errors.  A 
with reviewing authorities that I was to be 
ge action on June 6, 1992.  Having made that 
created the discharge "package." 

It appears he arranged for memos to be written well after many of the incidents of 
misconduct.  As a result, the case file included allegations that not only were false but 
should have been known to be inaccurate at the time they were included in the discharge 
case file.  For example, I did not make false statements to secure leave b 
and acted pn what I had been told by others (see letter from my father, 
not "AWOL from February 28 through March 2, 1992."  1 notified my supervisor each of 
the two duty days involved.  There was never any mention to me about the days that X 
used to address the vandalizing of my car in February until the notification of discharge 
on June 8.  There was no change of status documents issued and no disciplinary action 
proposed.  Even the memo from my then supervisor is undated.  I believe it was not 
written until the time the discharge package was prepared.  Indeed all "memos for the 
record" in the discharge package were written substantially after the alleged events. 

As for the "twice drunk in May and June 1992 while enrolled in the alcohol rehabilitation  " 
program," as noted in my letter of June 23, I completed the alcohol rehabilitation 
program on May 1.  Therefore, I was not in the rehabilitation program at that time.  I 
should have been in an aftercare program, which I was not,  Instead, I was never 
discharged from the hospital and never entered the program, despite being recommended 
for return to duty by my treating physician.  I remained isolated in the psychiatric wards ' 
and assigned to count books in the library.  The fact that I remained untreated for my 
depression, my subsequent aberrant behavior was both predictable and avoidable. 

June 23,2004 
Page 4 

. . 

Moreover, although it was alleged in the memo to SAFJMJB that I failed to go to 
rehabilitation and made false statements, none of these events wer 
presented to me for rebuttal until months after the alleged events w 
concluded that the treatment provided (for the wrong diagnosis) was ineffective. 
The failure to follow appropriate discharge procedures is evidenced in other aspects of - 
the discharge "package."  As noted in the S M N I B  memo, until my internship at 
MGMC my performance had consistently been described for years as "outs 
"extremely outstanding."  This continued at MGMC, but was not mentioned b 
I received at least three letters of appreciation as well as gifts from a Secret Se 
patient, which I still have.  (See Tab HI, "Supporting Letters and Documentation")  Also 1 

uch less 

aff with legal assistance and served on hospital committees as I 
though these letters, activities and other positive feedback were 
as he gave me one of the letters, saw the picture from the 

President, and served on the committees with me), these items were not mentioned in thm 
discharge package.  This unfair "padding"  and unbalanced representation of my service , 
in the discharge package was done to create the strongest possible discharge package 
without regard to facts or fairness. 

In pointing out these irregul 
to consider them quibbling w 
how events were "forced"  to fit a predetermined, improper and inequitable result. 

essing of my discharge, I urge the DRB not 
ersion of events in 1991-2, but illustrating 

A reviewer of the discharge "package" in 1992 and you, members of the DRB, could 
correctly ask why I did not effectively mount a rebuttal and other mitigating facts in. 
respond to the discharge 
1992. The DRB should understand that I could not 
asserted, I was a hopeless 
action due to my depression.  Equally important, if 
d to his allegations in the 
alcoholic, he should have known I could not adequa 
discharge action, especially when I was presented with many of the allegations, for the 
first time, long after the asserted misconduct.  Although I began to respond to the action 
allegations, it became clear to my parents after discussing my case with 
othing could persuade my commander a different course of action was 
, therefore, persuaded me to separated from the AF as soon as possible and 

seek treatment for my depression elsewhere. 

- 
Inequity 
Finally, I address the inequity of the reason and character of discharge based on the 
nature of my active duty service and my post-discharge conduct and service to society: 
My service was not accurately presented by the discharge "package."  I have addressed 
the quality of my active duty service earlier in this letter.  Therefore, I summarize my 
post-discharge conduct and service, which should provide the DRB a more thorough 
understanding of my performance-and, 
that in 1991-2,I was suffering from situational depression, not alcoholism. As noted 
above, after my discharge in August 1992 I have continued to be employed by the 

as an aside, supports the diagnosis and evidence 

Page 5 

Federal government.  Indeed, of all the HPSP students in my medical class I am, to my 

knowledge, the only one still with the Federal government. I served as medical-legal - 

advisor for the Federal Aviation Administration from 1992 until 2003 until I transferred- 
to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).  I served several details to the 
Department of Transportation and Justice as well as Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS) including current service as member of the Coast Guard Board for the Correction 
of Military Records for some 6 years.  I am currently the SE Area Deputy Director, " 
Aviation Operations, for TSA with responsibility for 89 airports and 11,000 personnel 
with additional duties as TSA Command Duty Officer representing the TSA 
Administrator in the TSA or DHS Watch Centers. 

' 

During these past 11 years I have received many FAA performance awards (with special 
note for my service on 911 1) as well as awards from the community for my service to  ' 
many organizations including with The Boy Scouts of America, Smithsonian ~nstitution 
and NASA. (See Tab IV "US  Government Service" and Tab V "Community Service") 

As I reflect upon my years of Air Force service, I believe my coworkers and I provided 
unique, significant service to our country that cannot be accomplished even by work in  . 
the Department of Homeland Security.  Therefore, I desire the opportunity to resume  . 
such service with the Reserves.  Changing the enlistment code would aid me in that 
endeavor. 

As stated, for all the reasons set out here and in the attached documents, I formally 
request the Discharge Review Board change my discharge from "GeneraVUnder 
Honorable Conditions7' to "Honorable,"  change the reason for discharge to "Convenience 
of the Government," and change my reenlistment code. 

- 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR  FORCE 

MALCOLM GROW USAF MEDICAL CENTER (AMC) 

FROM:  MGMC/SG 

Andrews  AFB  DC  20331-5300 

SUBJ:  N o t i f i c a t i o n  o f   A c t i o n   Under  AFR  36-2 

I  am  i n i t i a t i n g   a c t i o n   a d a i n s t   you  under  AFR  36-2,  Chapter  3, 

1. 
paragraph  3-7d. 

.- 

2. 

I  am  t a k i n g   t h i s   a c t i o n   f o r   t h e   f o l l o w i n g   reasons: 

a.  You  d i d ,   a t   Andrews  A i r   Force  Base,  Maryland,  between  on  o r  

about  30  J u l y   1991,  and  on  o r   about  27  August  1991,  w i t h o u t   a u t h o r i t y ,  
f a i l   t o  go  a t   t h e   t i m e   p r e s c r i b e d   t o  your  appointed  p l a c e   o f  d u t y ,   t o  
w i t :   B u i l d i n g   1050, 

f o r   Emergency  Room  d u t i e s .  

b.  You  d i d ,   a t   Andrews  A i r   Force  Base,  Maryland,  on  o r   about 

20  October  1991,  w i t h o u t   a u t h o r i t y ,   f a i l   t o  go  a t   t h e   t i m e   p r e s c r i b e d  
t o  y o u r   appointed  p l  ace  o f  duty,  t o  w i t :   B u i l d i n g   1050,  as  t h e   s u r g e r y  
i n t e r n   on  c a l l  . 

c.  You  d i d ,   a t   t h e   N a t i o n a l   Naval  Medical  Center,  Beth,esda, 

Maryland,  a t   d i v e r s   times,  between  on  o r   about  23  October  1991  and  on 
o r   about  19  November  1991,  w i t h o u t   a u t h o r i t y ,   f a i l   t o  go  a t   t h e   t i m e  
p r e s c r i b e d   t o  y o u r   appointed  p l a c e   o f  duty,  t o  w i t :   Department  o f   ' 
O b s t e t r i c s   and  Gynecology. 

d.  You  d i d ,   a t   t h e   N a t i o n a l   Naval  Medical  Center,  Bethesda, 

Maryland,  between  on  o r   about  23  October  1991  and  on  o r   about 
19  November  1991,  w i t h   i n t e n t   t o  deceive,  make  t 
statement,  t o  w i t :  
and  t h a t   y o u r   f a t h e r   had  died,  which  statements  were  t o t a l l y   f a l s e   and 
were  t h e n   known  by  you  t o   be  so  f a l s e .  

t h a t   you  had  been  placed  on 

i l l n e s s  

an  o f f i c i a l  

e.  You  d i d ,   a t   Andrews  A i r   Force  Base,  Maryland,  on  o r   about 

11  November  1991,  w i t h  
s e c u r i n g   leave,  make  t o  
statement,  t o  w i t :  
t h a  
t o t a l l y   f a 1  s e   and  was  . t h e n   known  by  you  t o   be^ so  f i l ' s e .  

pose  o f  
an  o f f i c i a l  
tement  was, 

f .   You  d i d ,   a t  Andrews  A i r   Force  Base,  Maryland,  on  o r   about 

28  February  1992,  w i t h o u t   a u t h o r i t y ,   absent  y o u r s e l f   from  y o u r   u n i t ,   t o  
w i t :   Malcolm  Grow  USAF  Medical  Center  l o c a t e d   a t   B u i l d i n g   1050, 
Andrews  A i r   Force  Base,  Mary1 and,  and  d i d   remain  absent  u n t i l  on  o r  
about  2  March  1992. 

FOR  OFFICIAL'  USE  ON[Y 

AMC -- GLOBAL REACH FOR AMERICA 

h.  You were, at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, on or about 

12 May 1992, while enrolled  in an alcohol rehabilitation program, 
drunk. 

i.  You were, at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, on or about 

1 June 1992, while enrolled in an alcohol rehabilitation program, 
drunk. 

Attached are copies of documentary evidence to support this action. 
The worst possible discharge that may be  approved for the reasons cited 
is under other than honorable conditions. 

3.  Familiarize yourself with AFR 36-2, particularly paragraph 4-10, 
which outlines the rights afforded you in this action, and paragraph 
4-13, which explains the action the major cornmar 
of your reply to this correspondence.  Contact 
Area Defense Counsel at 6519. to discuss the Dr 

F M u r  rights and  options. 

4.  Within 15 calendar days after your receive this correspondence, you 
may : 

a. 

If eligible to retire, apply for voluntary retirement to be 

effective on the first day of the month  immediately following 
notification of approval by  t h e   Secretary of the  Air Force.  If less 
than 15 calendar days between the date your are notified and the  first 
day of the month following notification, the effective date of your 
retirement will be the first day of the second month after 
notification.  If you have 20 or more years of active mi 1 itary service 
but  you do not have the required minimum 10 years of active , 
commissioned service to qualify for retirement in officer status, you 
may apply for separation under the provisions of AFR 36-12, table 2-7, 
rule 1, to enlist for the purpose of retirement in the enlisted grade 
in lieu of  further action under AFR 36-2. 

b.  If ineligible to retire, tender your resignation according to  / 

AFR 36-12, table 2-7, rule 1, to be effective within 10 calendar days 
fol lowing not if ication of acceptance by  the Secretary of the Air Force. 
By tendering your resignation you wi 11 be disqual if ied for separation 
or readjustnient pay if you are otherwise qualified to receive such pay. 
If you tender your resignation, it will be with the understanding that, 
if accepted, you will receive a under other than honorable conditions 
discharge, unless the Secretary of the Air Force determines that you 
will be honorably discharged. 

c.  Submit any written statement or other documentary evidence that 

you feel should be considered in evaluating your case.  If you are 
unable to prepare your statements or documentary evidence within the 

FOR  OFFIClAL  USE  ONLY 

time specified above, you may request more time  as outlined in AFR 
36-2, paragraph 4-12. 

5.  Within 15 calendar days after you receive this letter, send it 
without attachments, by  endorsement directly to HQ AMC/DPAFQ, 
in your endorsement: 

Include 

a.  A  statement that you have/have not: 

(1)  Applied for voluntary retirement, or 

(2)  Tendered your resignation. 

If  you apply for voluntary retirement or tender your resignation, 
attach a copy of your application to this endorsement. 

b.  A  statement that you do/do not desire to comment.  If you 

desire to comment, you may attach any statements or documentary 
evidence you want to submit.  I f  you have requested more t i m e   as 
out1 ined in paragraph 4c of this letter, attach a copy  of 'your request. .. 

c.  A  statement that vou have been counseled b d  

Chief, CBPO and that youdfully understand your riGhr 
this action. 

d.  You may request to be  placed on excess leave provided 

processing of this separation $ction  no longer requires your presence. 
AFR 35-9 provides guidance on excess leave. 

6.  Within 24 hours after you receive this correspondence, s i g n   and 
date two copies o f   the letter o f   acknowledgment.  Send one copy to this 
headquarters and one copy to HQ AMC/DPAFQ. 

4 Atchs 
la-1, Evidence 
AFR  36-2 
2. 
3.  AFR 36-12 
4.  Letter of Acknowledgment 

(2  ~ Y S )