RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-03018
		        COUNSEL:  NONE
 		        HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be changed. 

________________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was discharged for problems related to PTSD.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________ 

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 2 Dec 2003, the applicant entered active duty.

On 8 Feb 2010, the applicant received an Article 15, in 
violation of Article 92, Uniformed Code of Military Justice 
(UCMJ), for dereliction in the performance of his duties in that 
he willfully failed to conduct required airfield lighting checks  
in violation of Article 107, UCMJ, for intent to deceive and 
sign an official record stating he had completed the airfield 
lighting inspection.

On 17 Apr 2010, the applicant was discharged with service 
characterized as general (under honorable conditions) with a 
narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct (Minor 
Infractions).”  

He served on active duty for 6 years, 4 months and 16 days.  

________________________________________________________________ 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  After a complete review of the 
applicant’s personnel records, DPSOR was unable to find any 
documentation regarding the discharge.  Due to a lack of 
evidence and supporting documentation to explain the discharge, 
DPSOR concludes the misconduct was a significant departure from 
the conduct expected of military members and relies on the 
presumption of regularity and finds the character of service was 
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of 
the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the 
discharge authority.  The applicant states the actions that 
precipitated his discharge were due to mental health issues as a 
result of PTSD, however, there is no evidence to support his 
claim.  Absent this documentation, there is a presumption of 
regularity in which the applicant was afforded due process.   

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

________________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 6 Sep 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit 
D).  As of this date, this office has not received a response.   

________________________________________________________________ 

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 an error or injustice.  We took 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to 
the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought in this application.  

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved.  
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered.

_______________________________________________________________ 


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that 
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 Docket Number BC-
2013-03018 in Executive Session on 15 Apr 2014, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Jun 2013.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Available Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 15 Aug 2013.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Sep 2013.  



 
                                   Panel Chair