A I R   FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

RECORDS 

IN THE  MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97 
COUNSEL:  NONE 

01879 

HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

The narrative reason f o r   his separation be changed to allow 
eligibility to be considered for a commission in the Air National 
Guard  (ANG); or, eligibility to enlist in the ANG. 

He be promoted to the grade of captain  (0-3). 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

The narrative reason for discharge negates the otherwise 
honorable nature of his eight years of service.  His condition 
and state of mind at the time were not reflective of the way he 
conducted his life as a whole  -  either before or after the three 
incidents that seem now to define his entire Air Force career. 
He had three alcohol related incidents:  December 1981, September 
1982 and May 1983 -  all within 17 months. 
did not deal with it until he got out of the Air Force.  His life 
has been stable, productive and rewarding since 1985. 

He had a problem and 

He was selected for and earned a promotion to captain. 

t 

In support of his request, the applicant submits two personal 
statements, with additional documents associated with the issues 
cited in his contentions.  These documents are appended at 
Exhibit A. 

(25 April 1973-21 May 1973); Regular Air Force  (22 May 

STATEMENT OF -FACTS : 
Applicant’s prior enlisted service is as follows:  Air Force 
Reserve 
1973-17 January 1977 -  hardship discharge) ;  and,-Air 
National Guard  (21 July 1974-30 July 1979).  Applicant’s 
ANG/USAFR Point Credit Summary, prepared 20 September 1979, 
reflects 4  years, 
The  applicant’s last enlistment was in the Regular Air Force on 
3 1  July 1979 in the grade of  sergeant  (E-4) f o r   a period of  4 
years. 
a commission. 

7 months and 26 days of satisfactory service 

On 4  November 1979, he was honorably discharged to accept 

97-0 1879 

On 5 November 1979, applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, 
Reserve of the Air Force.  On 15 March 1983, he accepted 
Indefinite Reserve Status ( I R S )   and agreed to remain on active 
duty for an indefinite period. 

Applicant’s OER  profile, commencing with the report closing 
28 March 1980, follows: 

Period Endinq 

Evaluation 

28 Mar 80 
28 Sep 80 
28 Mar 81 
28 Sep 81 
28 Mar 82 
#  17 Dec 82 
*  31 Oct 83 
30 Apr 84 

Education/Training Report  (TR) 
2-2-2 
2-2-2 
1-1-1 
1-1-1 

TR 

3-5-5 
3-0-3 

*  Referral OER 
#  Top report at the time he was considered and selected for 
promotion to captain by the CY83A Captain Selection Board, which 
convened on 24 January 1983.  However, on 3 November 1983, by 
order of the Secretary of the Air Force, the applicant’s name was 
removed from the promotion list. 
#  Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected f o r  
promotion to captain by the CY84A Captain Selection Board, which 
convened on 16 January 1984. 

-- - 

C)n  18 August 1983, the applicant was notified that his wing 
commander was initiating discharge action against him under AFR 
36-2 because he conducted himself in a manner incompatible with 
exemplary standards of personal conduct, character and integrity 
by mismanagement of personal affairs to the discredit of the 
service, and recurrent misconduct.  The misconduct applicant had 
committed was as 
ehended for fleeing the scene 
of an accident at 
A F B , w  on 18 December 1981; 
(b) Arrested f o r   driving under the influence  (DUI) in Lompoc, CA, 
on 29 September 1981; and  (c) Arrested for DUI i r i   Minot, ND, on 
15 May 1983.  As a result of the two alcohol-related incidents, 
he was permanently decertified from PRP  (Personnel Reliability 
Program).  The case was found legally sufficient to support 
discharge action.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel and 
submitted a rebuttal statement. 

The applicant’s letter of initiation, dated 18 August 1983 was 
amended on 11 0 
conviction from 
commander conce 
result of the 29 September i581 traffic incident; and, on 6 March 

er 1983, to include a copy of the civil court 
and a letter from his former squadron section 
g a Letter of Reprimand  (LOR) issued as a 

97-0 1879 

1984, to include a copy of his 1 G  February 1984 civil court 
conviction  (DUI reduced to physical control) in 

On 21 November 1983, the applicant was notified of his selection 
to show cause for his retention in the Air Force.  On 30 November 
1983, applicant waived consideration by a Board of Inquiry; that 
his case would be processed under AFR 36-2; that he did not 
tender his resignation; and, he consulted legal counsel-.  On 
16 April 1984, the Secretary of the Air Force ordered that the 
appointment of the applicant, as a Reserve officer, be  terminated 
and he be issued an honorable discharge. 

On 1 May 1984 the applicant was honorably discharged in the grade 
of lSt lieutenant (02) under the provisions of AFR 36-12 
(Involuntary Discharge: Unfit, Unacceptable Conduct).  He had 
completed a total of 8 years, 4 months and 26 days of active duty 
service and a total of 10 years, 5 months and 3 days military 
service at the time of his discharge. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Applicant’s request to change the reason for discharge was denied 
by the Air Force Discharge Review Board  (AFDRB) on 20 May 1997. 
In accordance with policy, the application was forwarded-to this 
Board for further consideration.  A copy of the Air Force 
Discharge Review Board Hearing Record is appended at Exhibit C. 

The Chief, Officer Promotion Operations, HQ AFPC/’DPPPO, reviewed 
this application and recommended applicant’s request for 
promotion to captain be denied.  DPPPO indicated that the 
applicant met and was selected for promotion to captain by the 
CY83A Captain Selection Board.  However, he was removed from the 
promotion list for cause by order of the Secretary of the Air 
Force.  As a result of this action or first time nonselection for 
promotion, the applicant was considered by the next scheduled 
captain selection board.  The applicant was considered and not 
selected by the CY84A Captain Selection Board as an above-the- 
promotion zone  (APZ) eligible officer.  The applicant’s 
nonseiection by the CY84A captain board constituted his second 
failure for promotion.  Upon this second nonselection for 
promotion, applicant was no longer eligible to meet another 
promotion board.  DPPPO stated that there are no provisions in 
law or Air Force policy to allow an officer twice nonselected for 
promotion and subsequently separated to be reconsidered for 
promotion by a board.  Since the applicant was involuntarily 
separated from active duty, there is no basis for- eligibility, 
reconsideration or selection.  DPPPO  indicated that the 
application is untimely.  The applicant waited over 12 years to 
file and took no action on the claim before that.  DPPPO stated 
that the applicant’s unreasonably delay has also caused prejudice 
to the Air Force.  The Air Force asserts that the applicant’s 
unreasonably delay regarding a matter now dating back 12 years 

97-0 1879 

has greatly complicated its ability to determine the merits of 
the applicant’s position  (Exhibit D). 

As to the untimeliness of his. 

APPLICANT‘S REVIEW OF  AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and indicated that 
the evidence he presented supports that he was suffering from an 
“Adjustment Disorder.” 
application, he considered his Air Force career to be over and 
did not believe there was any way to salvage any part of it. 
Another underlying reason he waited so long is that he wanted to 
be sure his life was in fact back on tract.  He was not selected 
which he 
for promotion because of his alcohol related behavior, 
believes was due to an “Adjustment Disorder.”  He has turned his 
Even if the Air Guard decides 
life around since his discharge. 
not to accept him for service, he believes he deserves better 
than to have his DD Form  214 read: “Involuntary Discharge: Unfit, 
Unacceptable Conduct.”  He believes he has much to offer and asks 
that he be given the chance to demonstrate his abilities and 
character in the ANG.  He requests that the Board read the 
statements from his former commander she knew him better and 
longer than any member of any board who would look at the 
yellowed pieces of paper to sit in judgment to decide his fate. 
A complete copy of this response is appended at Zxhibit G .  

-~ 

_ _  

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the AFBCMR Chief Medical 
Consultant reviewed this application concerning the applicant‘s 
contention that he suffered from an Adjustment Disorder between 
1981 and 1984 when he was separated from the service. 

The Medical Consultant indicated that the applicant’s medical 
records are incomplete, but the entries available for review do 
A note by his flight surgeon on 
not allude to any such disorder. 
3 1  August 1993 notes that applicant recognized he had an alcohol 
problem and that he was determined to overcome this.  Records 
reveal that he did participate in the local alcohol 
A mental health evaluation in March 1983 
rehabilitation program. 
following a Social Action charge of sexual harassment found \‘no 
mental, emotional, or behavioral condition.”  Since discharge, 
applicant has sought advice of civilian professionals as to the 
likelihood of his having an adjustment disorder, and has been 
informed that the possibility existed.  The Medical Consultant 
stated that it was not, and is not, possible to conjecture on the 
absolute existence of his disorder 13 years after the 

fact. 

The Medical Consultant stated that records available for review 
do not support applicant’s contention that he suffered from an 
Adjustment Disorder that triggered his alcohol-related problems. 
The o n l y   derogatory words noted on his pe-forman??  reports r e l a t e  

97-0 1879 

to the alcohol incidents, and the last two instruments did not 
recommend his promotion to captain. 
stated that whether or not such a disorder existed 13 years ago 
is a moot point, at best: people with such disorders are still 
held responsible for their misconduct.  The Medical Consultant is 
of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted and the 
application should be denied  (Exhibit E). 

The Medical Consultant 

APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

It takes a 

He stated that Adjustment Disorder is often overlooked in many 
cases where it is applicable because the one who suffers from the 
disorder is usually not aware of his situation. 
trained professional who is at least open to the possibility that 
the problem exists.  He was responsible for his misconduct: he 
paid his fines, he did his time, and he accepted his untimely and 
embarrassing separation from the Air Force.  Further, he came in 
terms with his problems and made peace with himself. 
possibility is strong that the disorder existed over 13 years ago 
-  the reason it was not determined has more to da with lack of 
assessment and diagnostic procedures than anything else.  It is 
very relevant that the disorder (or the stressors that existed) 
was very much a factor in his strange and  (for him) bizarre 
behavior.  More in-depth diagnosis should have been done at the 
time. 
Adjustment Disorder.  He has, with help, rehabilitated himself 
and requests clemency based on his previously established post- 
service activities.  He is now fit for service and his military 
record should reflect his current level of fitness.  A complete 
copy of this response is appended at Exhibit H. 

There is ample credible evidence to suggest a diagnosis of 

The 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by 

1. 
existing law or regulations. 

The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the 

2. 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 

3 .   Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. 
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 and adopt their rationale as the 
basis for the conclusion that the applicant has riot  been the 
victim of an e r r o r   or-  injustice. 
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 
4.  We  also  find  insufficlent  evidence  to  warrant 
recommendatlo11  t h a t   the  nai-1-ative reason  f o r   his  separation  !:e 

Therefore, in the absence of 

We 

a 

97-0 1879 

changed to allow eligibility to be considered for a commission in 
the  Air  National Guard  ( A N G ) ;   or, eligibility to  enlist  in  the 
ANG  on  the  basis  of  clemency.  We  have  considered  applicant's 
overall  quality  of  service,  the  events  which  precipitated  the 
discharge,  and  available  evidence  related  to  post-service 
activities and  accomplishments.  On  balance,  we  do  not  believe 
that clemency is warranted. 

5.  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(s) 
involved.  Therefore, the request f o r   a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of  probable 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 discovere'd relevant evidence not 
considered with this application. 

The following members of the Board considered this applica-tion in 
Executive Session on 9 April  1998, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603 : 

Mr. Henry C. Saunders, Panel Chair 
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member 
Mr. Gary  Appleton, Member 
Ms. Christine Yurkiewicz, Examiner  (without vote) 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Dec 86, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records, 
Exhibit C. AF/DRB Hearing Record. 
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 22 Jul 97. 
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 25 Jul 97. 
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Aug 97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit G .   Memo, Medical Consultant, dated 30 Sep 97. 
Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Oct 97. 
Exhibit I. Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Oct 9 7 ,  w/atchs. 

,/ 

3' 

/ 

Y C. SAUNDERS 
el Chair