RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05150 COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to “honorable.” ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His separation was a result of an emotional condition. He has worked with the government for over 24 years and has a flawless record of service. His contributions to his community, society, and government should be considered. An honorable discharge will allow him to use his military service towards credit for his retirement. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge and change of address notification. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 11 Apr 1969, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 2 Sep 1970, a psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant with “emotionally unstable personality, chronic, moderately severe, EPTS, LOD no.” He recommended that he be administratively discharged. On 30 Nov 1970, his commander notified him that he was recommending he be discharged under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Unfitness, Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program. The reason for his proposed action was “a character and behavior disorder diagnosed by medical authority as an emotionally unstable personality, chronic, moderately severe.” On 30 Nov 1970, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification. On 4 Dec 1970, the Acting Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge legally sufficient. On 28 Dec 1970, the applicant was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge after serving 1 year, 8 months and 15 days of active duty. On 2 Jul 2013, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. (Exhibit C) On 16 Jul 2013, the applicant requested his case be administratively closed. (Exhibit D) On 21 Oct 2013, the applicant requested his case be reopened. He provided an extensive statement regarding his life prior to enlisting in the Air Force as well as his post-service accomplishments. His commitment and dedication as a Communication Specialist led to early promotions and supervisory assignments and he wore his uniform with pride. In his last few months in the service, he became emotionally unstable and detached from the Air Force. After visiting with the base psychologist it was determined that his discharge from the Air Force was appropriate. He is a model citizen and takes pride in his character and reputation. After he was discharged, he became a woodworker and advanced to lead cabinetmaker in three years. He enrolled in jazz classes at a local college; playing music at night and working during the day as a cabinetmaker. In 1974 he moved to a small town where he worked for the U.S. Forest Service on a fire suppression crew. He later went to work rigging logs and within a few years he was promoted to Crew Foreman. He moved back to Utah to help care for his ill father and worked at a music store selling instruments during the day and playing music at night. He subsequently enrolled in a technical college and worked as a Carpenter’s Apprentice for four years. He learned a great deal about the construction trade from his father who was an expert craftsman. He received his Journeyman Carpenter’s Certificate and belonged to the local Carpenters’ Union for approximately ten years. During his apprenticeship he reconnected with his high school sweetheart and they have been happily married for 33 years. Together they have built two homes and raised two successful children. He loves being a dad and has been an active parent in his children’s life. For the last twenty-five years, he has worked for the city Building Services and Civil Enforcement Division. During his employment with the City he received certifications as a Building Inspector and Plans Examiner with the International Code Council. He holds a state license as a Building Inspector and is certified with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. He currently works as the Civil Enforcement Manager, managing nineteen inspectors and support staff, working daily with the Mayor's Office. He has earned a Black Belt and served as a liaison for his sister city in Matsumoto, Japan. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority. The applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the characterization of the service was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to recommend granting relief sought on that basis. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. ________________________________________________________________ ? The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 13 Mar 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC- 2012-05150: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Oct 2012, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Jul 2013, w/atch. Exhibit D. E-mail, Applicant, dated 16 Jul 2013. Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Jul 2013. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Oct 2013, w/atchs. Panel Chair 4 4