RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03565 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was diagnosed as manic/depressive by a psychiatrist at Keesler Air Force Base (AFB), Mississippi (MS); however, he was never treated. He has had an extremely chaotic life for 37 years, and was finally diagnosed as Bipolar in 2011. He is currently being treated with medications which help him to lead a “normal” lifestyle. He should have received proper medication and counseling when he was diagnosed while on active duty. The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who entered active duty on 10 January 1972. The applicant received Article 15 punishment on 13 November 1973 for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). As a result, he was ordered to forfeit $25 pay per month for two months. He also received three written reprimands: 22 April 1974, violation of a lawful regulation by having his hair too long and not presenting a tapered appearance, in violation of Article 92 UCMJ; 3 June 1974, driving 32 miles per hour (mph) in a 25 mph zone on Keesler AFB, MS; and 17 October 1974, stealing one blue jacket from the Base Exchange, Keesler AFB, MS. On 5 July 1974, he entered into the Air Force Drug Abuse Rehabilitation Program. He progressed to Phase V on 30 August 1973 and graduated from the program on 9 September 1974. He was evaluated on 29 August 1974 and again on 25 September 1974 by the Mental Health Clinic at Keesler Medical Center. He was also evaluated on 6, 9, and 19 September 1974. The 29 August 1974 examination results indicate “no clear signs of psychosis or neurosis, and social history does not support a character and behavior disorder… He is experiencing what is best described as a situational adjustment reaction of adult life…manifestations of his reaction include frequent feelings of depression and irritability, a deteriorated marital and familial emotional gratification from Air Force duties…while [applicant] is currently responsible for his behavior, he is poorly motivated for performing Air Force duties…If this man continues to withdraw socially and does not have contact with his wife and son, he may be expected to decompensate emotionally…” The evaluations of 6,9, and 19 September 1974 show results indicating a “moderate character and behavior disorder” best described as a passive-aggressive personality, aggressive type, with immature features. The 25 September 1974 evaluation indicates “[applicant] has very poor potential for retention in the Air Force, is not amenable to treatment, and states clearly that he wants out and is not willing to cooperate in the performance of duties…this man should not be granted a security clearance…he should be held responsible for his behavior…” On 30 October 1974, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant of his intent to recommend him for discharge for unsuitability under the provisions of Air Force Manual 39-12, Chapter 2, Section A. The commander also indicated he was recommending the applicant receive an honorable discharge certificate. The applicant acknowledged his commander’s intent, waived his right to a hearing before an administrative discharge board, consulted counsel, and submitted a statement in his own behalf. The Deputy Staff Judge Advocate found the case to be legally sufficient and indicated the discharge authority had the prerogative to determine the type of discharge the applicant should receive, either honorable or general (under honorable conditions). On 7 November 1974, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s discharge; however, indicated that based on the applicant’s overall military record, which included three written reprimands and punishment under the UCMJ (Article 15), the issuance of an honorable discharge was not warranted. As a result, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, and that neither the term “unsuitable” nor any other data, other than that specified, would be annotated on the applicant’s DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty. The applicant was discharged from active duty in the grade of sergeant (E-4) effective 8 November 1974 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He served 2 years, 9 months, and 29 days on active duty. On 30 January 2013, the applicant was given an opportunity to submit comments about his post service activities (Exhibit C). In response, the applicant provided a personal statement with an Arizona Department of Education certificate, a Fingerprint Clearance Card notification letter, a letter of support, and a Bachelor of Arts certificate. The applicant’s complete rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ _ 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, a majority of the Board finds 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, the Board majority does not find the evidence presented is sufficient to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, a majority of the Board finds no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought. ________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-03565 in Executive Session on 25 April 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member By a majority vote, the members voted to deny the request. XXX voted to correct the record and did not desire to submit a minority report. The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-03565 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Jul 12. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 Jan 13, w/atch. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, not dated, w/atchs. Panel Chair