I 
1  NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAI,,) 
.............................. 
TYPE  GEN 

PERSONAL APPEARANCE 

I X  

I 

YES 

No 

X 

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION 

-..-..-....-..-..-., 

MEMBER SITTING 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD 

1  GRADE 

I 

SR A 
I 

I 

RECORD REVIEW 

L-..-..-..-..-C 

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL 
The American Legion 
Military Review Boards Representative 

Fsl~s 

A94.11 

IhDEX N l  MBER 

A67.10 

HEARING DATE 

CASE NUMBER 

1  I  ORDER APPOINTMG THE BOARD 
2  1  APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE 
3 
4 

LETTER OF NOTIFICATION 
BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE 
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD 
ADDITIONAL  EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF 
PERSONAL APPEARANCE 

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE 

01  May 2007 
APPLICAN'I'S ISSUE AN0 THB BOARD'S DECfSIONAt RATlWAL &R% DISCUSW G#4 PWATPKHBD AIR POI(C&RiSCHARGB  RBVI6W BOARD DBL'ISIONAL RATIONALE 

I 

I 

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. 

* Change Reason for Discharge 
+- Change RE Code 

SAFIMRBR 
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78 150-4742 

FROM 

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONYEL C O l  YCIL 
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOARD 
1535 COMMAND DR. EE WING. 3RD FLOOR 

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  (DRB), 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. i 
..5 

..................... 

b-.-....-.-....-.-...l 

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 until 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 IVCO or commander would 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 
"NONE7' 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. 5.1 1) 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 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 

ANDREWS AFB, MD 

(Former SRA) (,HGH SRA) 

1.  MATTER UNDER REVIEW:  Appl rec'd a GEN Disch f r  USAF Schriever AFB, CO on 12 
Jul 02 UP AFI 36-3208, para 5.49  (Misconduct -  Minor Disciplinary Infractions). 
Appeals for Honorable Disch. 

2 .   BACKGROUND: 

a. DOB: 9 Jan 80.  Enlmt Age: 19 2/12.  Disch Age: 22 6/12, Educ: HS DIPL. 

AFQT: N/A.  A-90,  E-53,  G-36,  M-47. PAFSC: 3A051 -  Information Management- 
Information.  DAS: 23 Nov 99. 

b.  Prior Sv:  (1) AFRes 17 Mar 99 -  13 Jul 99 (3 months 27 days) (Inactive). 

3.  SERVICE UNDER REVIEW: 

a.  Enlisted as A1C 14 Jul 99 for 4 years. Svd: 02 Yss 11 Mo 29 Das, all 

AMS . 

b.  Grade Status:  SrA -  14 Nov 01 

c.  Time Lost:  None. 

d.  Art 15's:  None. 
e.  Additional: LOR/UIF, 15 APR 02 -  Failed dorm room inspection. 

LOR, 04 MAR 02 -  Spending excessive duty time reviewing 

personal ernails. 

RIC, 02 OCT 01 -  Failed dorm room inspection. 
LOA, 21 MAY 01 -  Failure to go. 
RIC, 16 MAY OL -  Dereliction of duty and unacceptible 

behavior. 

f.  CM:  None. 

g.  Record of SV: 14 Jul 99 -  15 Jan 01  Schriever AFB  5  (HAF  DIR) 

02 Jan 01 -  20 Nov 01  Schriever AFB  3  (CRO) 

h.  Awards &  Decs:  AFOUA W/1 OLC, NDSM, AFTR. 

i.  Stmt of Sv:  TMS: (03) Yrs  (03) Mos  (26) Das 
TAMS: (02) Yrs  (11) Mos  (29) Das 

4.  BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW:  Appln  (DD Fm 293) dtd 6 Sep 06. 

(Change Discharge to Honorable) 

Issue 1:  I don't feel that I deserved an  (sic) General Under Honorable 

discharge because  I had  a mental breakdown  that my  superiors did not  address or 
recognize.  They did not provide me with medical  attention. 

ATCH 
1.  Nine character reference letters. 
2.  Twelve Appreciation Award/Certificates. 

(  ( 

('  . (  
DEPARTMENT OF ?HE AIR  FORCE 

SOW SPACE WING  (AFSPC) 

MEMOMNDUM FOR SRA: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - l  

, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  

"Z 1  X J ~  oa 

FROM:  3 SOPS/CC 

SUBJECT:  Notification Memorandum 

1.  I am recommending your discharge fkom the United States Air Force for misconduct (minor 
disciplinary irhactions).  The authority for this action is AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, 
paragraph 5.49.  If my recommendation is approved, your service will be characterized as 
general. 

2.  My reasons for this action are: 

",+ 

- 

a.  On or about 11 May 01 you received notice that you were scheduled for Security Forces 
augmentee duty and to report to guard mount at 0525 hrs on 14 May 01.  However, you did not 
properly inform anyone in your chain of command of your mandatory duty which resulted in you 
missing a shift that you were scheduled to work.  On or about 7 May 01 t h  11 May 01, you 
were tasked with a listing of 10 items to be completed in which only 5 were completed.  On or 
about 16 May 01 you returned to work 20 minutes late fkom lunch.  Prior to that you had been 
briefed by your section chief on the office lunch policy.  For this misconduct you received a 
Record of hdividual Counseling (AJ? FORM 174) dated 16 May 01. (atch 1 a) 

b.  On or about 15 May 01 you failed to go to a scheduled appointment to fire the M- 16A2 

at the USAJ? Academy CATM Range,  For this misconduct you received a Letter of 
Admonishment (LOA) dated 2 1 May 0 1.  (atch 1 b) 

c.  On or about 2 Oct 01 you failed dorm room inspection.  You must maintain your 

assigned quarters in accordance with standards outlined in 21 SWPAM 32-5, Unaccompanied 
Housing Brochure.  Prior to the inspection, you were verbally counseled for the unacceptable 
condition of your room by the squadron First Sergeant.  For this misconduct you received an AF 
Form 174 dated 2 Oct 01. (atch 1 c) 

d.  On or about 15 Jan 02 it was confirmed that you were spending an excessive amount of 
duty time checking your personal e-mail.  Furthermore, this problem continued through. 13 Feb 
02, during which time you were verbally counseled on numerous occasions.  Failure to obey a 
lawfid order is in direct violation of Art 92, UCMJ.  For this misconduct you received a Letter of 
Reprimand (LOR) dated 4 Mar 02.  (atch Id) 

MASTER  OF SPACE 

e.  On or about 6 Apr 02 you failed a quarterly dorm inspection for the second time.  For this 
misconduct you received an LOR dated 15 Apr 02 which established an Unfavorable Information 
File (UF) dated 22 Apr 02.  (atch le) 

3.  Copies of the documents to be forwarded to the separation authority in support of this 
recommendation are attached.  The commander exercising Special Court-Martial jurisdiction or a 
higher authority will decide whether you will be discharged or retained in the Air Force and, if 
discharged, how your service will be characterized. If you are discharged, you will be ineligible 
for reenlistment in the Air Force and any special pay, bonus, or education assistance fimds may 
be subject to recoupment, 

4.  You have the right to consult counsel.  Mlitary legal counsel has been obtained to assist you. 
I have made an appointment for you to consult the Area Defense Counsel at Peterson AFB at 
1330 hours on 24 Jun 02.  You may consult civilian counsel at your own expense. 

5.  You have the right to submit statements in your own behalf.  Any statements you want the 
separation authority to consider must reach me within 3 workdays from the date you receive his 
memorandum of notification unless you request and receive an extension for good cause shown. 
I will send them to the separation authority. 

6.  If you fail to consult counsel or to submit statements in your own behalf, your failure will 
constitute a waiver of your right to do so. 

7.  You have been scheduled for a medical examination. You must complete the attached DD 
Form 2697 (atch 5) and report to the Peterson AFB Flight Medicine Clinic at 1340 hours on 
25 Jun 02 for the examination, You must arrive 30 minutes prior to your scheduled appointment. 

8.  You must report to MPF Separations at 0900 hours on 26 Juu 02 to receive a briefing.  You 
can contact the Separations office at 567-5335. 

9.  Any personal information you furnish in rebuttal is covered by the Privacy Act of 1974. A 
copy of AFI 36-3208, is available for your use in your unit orderly room. 

b - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - u - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .  

Commander 

Attachments: 
1.  Derogatoxy Data: 

a.  AFFORM 174,16MayOl 
b.  LOA, 21 May01 
c.  AF FORM 174,2 Oct 01 
d.  LOR, 4 Mar 02 

e.  LOR, 15 Apr 02, UTF, ;22 Apr 02( 

2.  Airmen's Receipt of Notification 
3.  Airmen's  Statement 
4.  Recoupment Statement 
5.  DDFonn 2697