RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00848 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be changed to a medical discharge. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was recommended for a medical discharge six months prior to his discharge for misconduct. The misconduct was symptomatic and characteristic of his deteriorating mental health. His mental health issues were determined to be a service connected disability in Jul 13. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 17 Sep 02, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 1 Oct 03, he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failing to show up for his M-16 appointment on 11 Aug 03. He acknowledged receipt that day and did not provide a written response. On 28 Oct 03, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failing to show up for work at the start of the duty day. He acknowledged receipt that day and did not provide a written response. On 10 Nov 03, he received an LOR for failing to follow a Lawful Order or Regulation to go to his place of duty. He acknowledged receipt the same day and did not submit a written response. On 22 Dec 03, he received an Article 15, Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failure to go to his appointed place of duty. He was reduced in grade to airman basic suspended through 22 Jun 04 unless vacated sooner. On 24 Dec 03, he signed the notification from his commander that he was reducing him in grade to airman basic suspended through 22 Jun 04, unless vacated sooner. On 16 Jan 04, he was notified his rater was giving him a referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) based on conduct on/off duty, his failure to return to duty and the Article 15 punishment. On 5 Feb 04, he acknowledged receipt of the referral EPR. On 27 Feb 04, he received notification his commander recommended him for discharge per AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraphs 5.11.9 and 5.49. On 3 Mar 04, he acknowledged his rights, indicated he consulted counsel and was submitting written statements for consideration. On 15 Mar 04, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA), found the case legally sufficient pursuant to AFI 36-3208, paragraphs 5.11.9 and 5.49, citing paragraph 5.49, minor disciplinary infractions, as the primary basis for discharge, with a general service characterization, without probation or rehabilitation. On 5 May 04, the discharge authority upheld the discharge based on recommendations of the commander and the SJA and ordered the separation of the applicant with a general discharge, citing AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.49, minor disciplinary infractions as the primary reason. On 14 May 04, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He was credited with 1 year, 7 months and 28 days of active service. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. Based on a review of the master personnel records, the discharge to include the Separation Program Designator code, narrative reason for separation and character of service, was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. According to AFI 36-3208, paragraph 1.18.2, a general discharge is appropriate with “significant negative aspects of the airman’s conduct or performance of duty outweighs positive aspects of the airman’s military record.” The discharge authority concluded that his misconduct outweighed the positive aspects of his brief military service and directed a general discharge. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. At the time of the applicant’s discharge, he did not carry a diagnosis that rendered him eligible for processing through the military Disability Evaluation System (DES), under AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement and Separation. At the time of his discharge, his adjustment disorder with depressed mood was not considered a compensable medical condition warranting processing through the DES. The applicant was the subject of dual administrative bases for discharge, both under AFI 36-3208. Unlike, “dual-action” cases referred to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council where there co-exists an approved administrative discharge, under AFI 36-3208, and a compensable medical discharge, under AFI 36-3212, the medical consultant believes it was within the commander’s authority to execute either of the administrative bases for discharge; and to determine, of the two choices, which one predominated. Thus, the choice of discharge characterization by the commander indicates an implicit belief that the negative aspects of the applicant’s service outweighed the positive and, thus, warranted a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. However, due to the applicant’s unique circumstance, the board may alternatively offer a change in narrative reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority and issue an Honorable service characterization. The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 24 Nov 14 (Exhibit E) for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The version of AFI 44-109, Mental Health, Confidentiality, and Military Law, in effect at the time of the applicant’s discharge directed in paragraph 4.4., “For Air Force members with sufficiently severe personality disorders and a pattern of imminently dangerous behavior, the recommendation to the commander should note that, considering the circumstances, separation action should be initiated as soon as reasonably possible.” However, there is no evidence in the psychologist’s recommendation for discharge that the applicant’s disorders met requirements for expeditious processing and HQ AFPC/DSPOR has advised that the applicant’s discharge met procedural and substantive requirements. The Clinical Psychology Consultant also notes that the applicant’s adjustment disorder and his personality disorder did not meet criteria for a physical disability as defined in E2.1.25 of DoD Instruction 1332.38, Physical Disability Evaluation, (in effect at the time of his discharge). Therefore, his condition would not have triggered processing the applicant into the disability evaluation system via a medical evaluation board. This Consultant recognizes the often intertwined nature of psychological functioning and behavior, but also opines that the associated features of personality disorders or adjustment disorders do not preclude holding Service members accountable for misconduct. As addressed in the recommendation for discharge from a clinical psychologist, subsequent misconduct and final disposition do not appear to support the applicant’s request for a change in reason for discharge. The complete AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit F. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force Clinical Psychology Consultant evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9 Jun 15 (Exhibit G) for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely filed. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice regarding the applicant’s request to change his discharge to medical. The applicant alleges he should have received a medical discharge due to deteriorating mental health that caused his misconduct. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission, including attachments, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force Medical Consultant and Clinical Psychologist and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant’s disciplinary infractions were the primary basis for discharge. 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 was the subject of dual administrative bases for discharge whereby his commander exercised authority to execute the administrative bases due to the negative aspects of the applicant’s service. Therefore, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 4. Notwithstanding the above, we believe relief is warranted with respect to the applicant’s characterization of service and narrative reason for separation. We note that the discharge action taken against the applicant was in accordance with the applicable instruction. However, after reviewing the applicant’s request and the evidence of record, we find the characterization of service and narrative reason for separation, to be inappropriate. In our deliberations of this case, it appeared to us that the applicant’s deteriorating medical condition was the cause of his inability to adapt to military life. In addition, the relatively minor misconduct took place primarily after the discharge recommendation for a mental health condition was made. In view of the foregoing, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected to the extent indicated below. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show his character of service as “Honorable” and his narrative reason for separation as “Secretarial Authority.” The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00848 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Feb 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 7 Aug 14. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 2 Oct 14. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Nov 14. Exhibit F. Memorandum, AFBCMR Clinical Psychologist, dated 28 May 15. Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jun 15.