RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00753 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to 
honorable; his reason for separation be changed to Medical, 
Disability, or convenience of the Government; eliminate his 
reduction in grade imposed by nonjudicial punishment on 
11 February 1994; and his record be corrected to reflect he 
served to the end of his term of service. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

Many issues directly related to his unjust separation were 
associated with his disabling post-traumatic stress disorder 
(PTSD), for which there was no screening or encouragement from 
his command to seek treatment. Under current standards this 
would be mandated. His actions, which were deemed as misconduct 
by his command and which occurred over a course of a few weeks, 
do not outweigh his dedicated duty at his deployed locations and 
his home station. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the 
Armed Forces of the United States; a Post-Deployment Health 
Reassessment (PDHRA) Procedures for Active Duty Airmen 
memorandum; Brief of Discharged Veteran; Center for Health Care 
Services documentation; and two letters of support. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 8 June 1992, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force 
as an Air Transportation apprentice. He was progressively 
promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3) effective 
11 February 1994. 

Between 21 January 1994 and 1 March 1994, the applicant received 
one Letter of Reprimand (LOR), two Letters of Counseling (LOCs), 


two Article 15 punishments, and had his driving privileges on 
base revoked. 

 

On 18 April 1994, the applicant was notified of his commander’s 
intent to discharge him from the Air Force for a “Pattern of 
Misconduct,” under the authority of Air Force regulation 39-10, 
paragraph 5-47b, with either an honorable or general 
characterization of service. The applicant acknowledged his 
commander’s intent, consulted counsel, and submitted a statement 
in his own behalf. On 3 May 1994, the Acting Staff Judge 
Advocate found the case to be legally sufficient and recommended 
a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation (P&R). 
On 5 May 1994, the discharge authority approved the recommended 
discharge and ordered the applicant be discharged without P&R, 
with a general discharge certificate. 

 

The applicant was discharged effective 9 May 1994, in the grade 
of airman (E-2) with a general (under honorable conditions) 
discharge. He served 1 year, 11 months, and 2 days on active 
duty. 

 

A Department for Veteran Affairs (DVA) Rating Decision, dated 
21 October 2008, reflects the applicant has been awarded service 
connection for PTSD with a 70 percent disability rating. 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. JAJM states the applicant has not 
shown a clear error or injustice with regard to either of the 
nonjudicial punishment actions or his administrative discharge. 
A review of both nonjudicial punishment actions show the 
applicant was given all of the rights to which he was entitled 
throughout the course of the actions. In both cases, he was 
given the right to demand court-martial instead of having his 
commander decide his guilt or innocence and potential punishment. 
In both cases, he waived his right to court-martial. In both 
cases, he was given the opportunity to present information to the 
commander for consideration in the commander’s decision. In both 
cases, the applicant was given an opportunity to appeal the 
commander’s decision. In both cases, the nonjudicial punishment 
action was reviewed and found to be legally sufficient. The 
commander was in the best position to carefully weigh all of the 
evidence, make informed findings of fact, and arrive at a 
suitable punishment; therefore, the nonjudicial punishment 
actions were processed appropriately. The punishments were 
within prescribed limits and appropriate for the offenses 
committed. Although a discharge and the characterization of an 
administrative discharge are not typically referred to as 
punishments, neither the discharge nor the characterization 
should be deemed as excessive. 

 


The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical 
Consultant states there is no evidence that the applicant had a 
duty impairing physical or mental condition following his 
deployment, other than alcohol dependence that interfered with 
his ability to perform military service. However, there is 
significant evidence the applicant’s alcohol usage preceded his 
deployment exposures by several years. Even though alcohol 
rehabilitation may not be looked upon as treatment for a 
traditional mental disorder, the medical inquiries and treatment 
efforts are conducted by trained mental health providers 
(psychologists and psychiatrists) giving the applicant many 
opportunities, both while an outpatient and inpatient, to 
disclose any underlying troubling thoughts, e.g., nightmares, 
flashbacks, etc., that could be attributed to his alcohol 
dependence and subsequent misconduct. Although his physicians 
retrospectively have referred the applicant’s service in Somalia 
as establishing a nexus with his current diagnosis; (as did the 
DVA in granting him service-connection), these factors do not 
validate the implicit premise the applicant’s alcohol dependence 
and resultant misconduct were mistaken manifestations of an 
undiagnosed PTSD. More importantly, although the applicant 
reported a history of frequent exposure to mortar and gunfire 
near his quarters, at no point during any of the interviews 
conducted by military mental health officials, is there 
documentation of a functional impairment attributed to PTSD, 
Depressive Disorder, Panic Disorder, or Anxiety Disorder 
resulting from such exposures. 

 

It is the BCMR Medical Consultant’s opinion that although the DVA 
has retroactively established a nexus between the applicant’s 
PTSD and events during his military service, there is no evidence 
that PTSD should have been the basis for separation; particularly 
in the context of the applicant’s reported alcohol remission, the 
many years he had been reportedly drinking prior to deployment, 
and the reasons he provided for consuming alcohol, e.g., unhappy 
with career field, to have fun, and to relieve stress. The Air 
Force conducted its procedures properly and the applicant’s 
commander had shown an interest in his well-being by assuring he 
received proper treatment of his alcohol dependence. The 
applicant has not met the burden of proof that an error or 
injustice has taken place that warrants a change in his narrative 
reason for discharge or his service characterization. 

 

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit 
D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 


Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 9 October 2009 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit E). As of this date, this office has received no 
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 an 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 office of primary responsibility 
and the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as the 
basis for our conclusion 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. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2009-00753 in Executive Session on 15 June 2010, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 


The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2009-00753: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Mar 09, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 19 Aug 09. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 8 Oct 09. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Oct 09. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair