RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02441
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He requested to be relieved from duty because he was depressed and
being a security policeman he was required to carry a gun and although
he had no suicidal thoughts he felt it was best to be relieved of duty
for the safety of others and himself.
He believes he was discharged with a general discharge because he was
deemed psychologically unfit by a psychologist. He was never offered
or given any treatment.
The applicant also states he was in the Army Reserve from April 2001
through October 2002.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is attached at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 11 December 1981 in
the grade of airman for a period of six years.
On 4 March 1985, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to
initiate discharge action against him for unsatisfactory
performance. The specific reasons for the discharge action were as
follows: being late for duty, substandard duty performance, leaving
his appointed place of duty early, missing an appointment, sleeping
on post and a recommendation from Mental Health that the applicant
should not carry a weapon.
The events that led to the applicant being discharged are listed
below:
a. On 16 June 1984, the applicant received a record of
counseling for being late for duty.
b. The applicant was verbally counseled on 8 July 1984, for
being on post with his hat off and laid back.
c. On 15 August 1984, the applicant was verbally counseled
for a dishonored check.
d. On 27 October 1984, the applicant received a Letter of
Reprimand (LOR) for being off post.
e. The applicant received an LOR on 6 December 1984 for
missing an appointment.
f. On 23 December 1984, the applicant received a record of
counseling for being late for duty and to improve performance,
attitude, and appearance.
g. On 26 December 1984, the applicant’s commander notified
him he was not being recommended for promotion due to substandard
duty performance.
h. On 7 January 1985, a request for administrative action was
requested for the applicant’s substandard duty performance.
i. On 9 January 1985, the applicant’s squadron section
commander requested a Mental Health Evaluation on the applicant.
The Mental Health Evaluation was conducted on 22 and 24 January
1985. The evaluation revealed the applicant was a possible problem
drinker, he had an Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood and Mixed
Personality Disorder with immature and avoidant traits.
j. On 16 January 1985, the applicant received a letter of
counseling (LOC) for being late for duty on 15 January 1986.
k. The applicant received verbal counseling on 24 January
1985 for a dishonored check.
l. On 25 January 1985, the applicant was verbally counseled
for a dishonored check.
m. On 13 February 1985, the applicant received a letter of
admonishment (LOA) for not being at his designated duty station on
12 February 1985.
n. On 13 February 1985, the applicant received an LOA for
being late for duty on 13 February 1985.
o. On 7 and 8 March 1985, the applicant missed his scheduled
appointment for a physical and social actions.
The commander advised the applicant of his right to consult legal
counsel and that military legal counsel had been obtained for him;
and to submit statements in his own behalf; or waive the above
rights after consulting with counsel.
The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification letter on 4
March 1985.
On 11 March 1985, an addendum was added to the applicant’s
Recommendation for Discharge for the applicant missing his
appointment to have a physical on 7 March 1985 and on 8 March 1985
missing a scheduled appointment with social actions.
The applicant submitted a statement in his behalf regarding his
discharge on 12 March 1985.
On 13 March 1985, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the addendum
to the Recommendation for Discharge and waived his right to consult
counsel.
On 18 March 1985, the applicant submitted a statement in his behalf
regarding the addendum to the Recommendation for Discharge.
The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action
that he repeatedly counseled the applicant with negative results.
A legal review was conducted on 15 March 1985 in which the staff
judge advocate recommended the applicant be discharged with a
general discharge with no probation and rehabilitation.
A resume of applicant's performance reports follows:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
10 Dec 82 8
27 Jun 83 8
1 Apr 84 9
3 Mar 85 4
Applicant was discharged on 29 March 1985, in the grade of airman
first class with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge,
in accordance with AFR 39-10 (unsatisfactory performance). He
served a total of 3 years, 3 months and 19 days of active service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not submitted any evidence nor
identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of
his discharge. Based upon the documentation in the applicant's file,
they believe his discharge was consistent with the procedural and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulations of that time.
Also, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge
authority. Although the applicant provided character statements, he
did not provide any facts to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.
Based on the information and evidence provided they recommend the
applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
30 September 2003, for review and response. 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure of 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 agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air
Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either
an error or an injustice. Based on the documentation in the
applicant's records, it appears that the processing of the discharge
and the characterization of the discharge were appropriate and
accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy. While the applicant
contends that he was discharged because he was deemed unfit
psychologically, it appears that the discharge was based on the
applicant’s overall misconduct, substandard duty performance and the
recommendation from Mental Health not to carry a weapon which could
have been incompatible with his job as a security specialist. It is
noted the Mental Health provider indicated the applicant’s retention
in the Air Force should be at the discretion of the commander. There
is no indication he was discharged for being
psychologically unfit. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling basis 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-02441 in Executive Session on 4 November 2003 under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Charlene Bradley, Panel Chair
Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Aug 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 29 Aug 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Sep 03.
CHARLENE BRADLEY
Panel Chair
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018155
On 2 April 1986, the applicant was counseled for failing to repair and missing the unit's first formation of the day at 0600 hours and for failing to report for duty after training. On 18 June 1986, the applicant was counseled by his unit commander that he was considering discharging him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14. The evidence of record shows that the applicant served successfully for a time during his service.
NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00712
ND03-00712 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030319. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. This condition alone should have warranted an Honorable discharge and being given Veterans Administration care and assistance at that time because my psychological condition required psychiatric care and a breakdown was imminent after my mothers death and previously listed childhood...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00586
h. On 15 October 1986, the applicant failed to report for duty at the prescribed time, for which he received written counseling. For this misconduct, the applicant was counseled. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not submitted any evidence nor identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of his discharge.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00750
He did on or about 14 March 1983, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: Area Defense Counsel, 1330 hours in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 86, as evidenced by a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 16 March 1983. c. He did on or about 18 May 1984, fail to report to his appointed place of duty, to wit: Building 90726, training section as it was his duty to do so in violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, as evidenced by a Letter...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01808
The applicant in March 1982 presented for care in the mental health clinic with nervousness and depressive symptoms due to “too much stress on flight line (his crew chief).” His medical records also reflect the applicant was evaluated for alcohol abuse in March 1983, with no other details listed. The evidence in the record shows a diagnosis of a personality disorder, however, the record also shows that the applicant’s duty performance was excellent. There is no indication in the record...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00176
He wants his medical records reevaluated to determine that he has no personality disorder. This is based on the determination of his recent mental health evaluation that diagnosis him with a personality disorder that is so severe that his ability to function effectively in the military environment is significantly impaired is the correct recommendation and he has a history of sleepwalking. The evidence of the record clearly shows that the applicant manifested behaviors and psychological...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01222
He remained in the WMP for a period of 2 years and 10 months, during which time he received 2 LORS, control roster action, and demotion to the grade of sergeant for his failure to maintain Air Force weight standards. His military medical records indicate that during two separate separation physical examinations he was found medically qualified for separation and had described his health as very good, with no health problems. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9609778C070209
On 2 April 1985, the applicant was found physically qualified for separation under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13. On 3 April 1985, the applicants commander submitted a request recommending that the applicant be separated for unsatisfactory performance. The applicants DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) indicates that he was discharged on 18 April 1985, in pay grade E-1, under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance, with a...
AF | DRB | CY2001 | FD01-00027
A thorough review of the record showed that the applicant received one Article 15, four,Letters of Reprimand, and one Letter of Counseling for multiple incidents of misconduct (e.g., failure to go, late for duty, dereliction of duty, carrying a concealed weapon, passing bad check, etc.). Applicant's Statement to the Discharge Review Board. (Atch 1 b) c. On or about 16 October 1997, the Respondent failed to report for duty at the prescribed time for a scheduled clean-up detail.
NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00558
The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. He became angry and had thoughts of striking the supervisor and of suicide. The Applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder by a competent medical authority on 980812.