RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00368 

COUNSEL: NONE 

 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, be corrected to reflect: 

 

1. An honorable characterization of service rather than a 
general (under honorable conditions). 

 

2. A narrative reason for discharge of “convenience of the 
government – physical conditions” rather than “misconduct.” 

 

3. His separation was “involuntary.” 

 

In addition, he requests any other appropriate relief, including 
return of GI Bill deposit monies. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He would like to have the option to reenlist in another branch of 
service and fulfill the military obligation he feels he owes his 
country. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
petition and a voluminous amount of military service records and 
documentation. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 3 February 2004. 
Following his receipt of two Article 15s, Unfavorable Information 
File, a Vacation of Suspension of Nonjudicial Punishment, a 
Letter of Reprimand, and a Record of Individual Counseling, the 
applicant’s commander notified him on 4 August 2005 that he was 
recommending him for a general (under honorable conditions) 
discharge for minor disciplinary infractions. The applicant 
acknowledged receipt of the notification, consulted counsel and 
presented a statement in his own behalf. After considering the 
applicant’s submission, the discharge authority approved the 


separation and directed a general (under honorable conditions) 
discharge without probation or rehabilitation. The applicant was 
involuntarily discharged effective 24 August 2005 after serving 1 
year, 6 months, and 22 days on active duty. 

 

On 30 April 2009, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) 
reviewed and denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his 
discharge to honorable, to change the reason and authority for 
the discharge, and to change his reentry (RE) code. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
upgrade his discharge and change his narrative reason for 
separation. DPSOS states that based on the documentation on file 
in the master personnel records, the applicant’s discharge, to 
include his characterization of service and his narrative reason 
for separation, was consistent with the procedural and 
substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was 
within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant 
did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice that 
occurred in the discharge processing. 

 

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change 
his RE code. DPSOA states the applicant received an RE code of 
“2B” (Separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable 
conditions discharge), based on the involuntary discharge with a 
general characterization of service. The RE code “2B” is 
required based on his involuntary discharge and general 
characterization of service in accordance with Air Force 
Instruction 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, Chapter 3. 

 

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial of the applicant’s request to refund 
his GI Bill deposit. DPSIT states the All-Volunteer Force 
Educational Assistance Program referred to as the Montgomery GI 
Bill (MGIB), provides benefits for a variety of education and 
training programs. Title 38 United States Code, Chapter 30, 
Section 3011, stipulates that all MGIB-eligible individuals are 
automatically enrolled in the MGIB upon entering active duty and 
are given a one-time opportunity to disenroll should they desire 
not to participate in the program. The applicant did not decline 
participation and was enrolled on 10 February 2004. 

 

DPSIT indicates that if the applicant’s characterization of 
discharge is upgraded to honorable, his eligibility for the MGIB 
is still in question as the time served and reason of separation 
are contributing factors towards establishing eligibility. 
However, under Post-9/11 GI Bill, an honorable character of 


service and a minimum of 90 days of qualifying service beyond 
technical school completion, establishes eligibility for 
36 months at a minimum of 40 percent rate. Every six months of 
service increases the rate of payment by ten percent. 

 

The complete DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 

 

It appears that despite the extensive effort on his part to 
challenge the discharge action, as indicated with the size and 
scope of his appeal, the reviewers to date not only fail to read 
the entire file, but never address the issues he has raised. He 
strongly urges the Board to please review his complete appeal 
record starting with his response to the AFDRB decision, dated 
13 January 2010. He made mistakes, but they did not warrant what 
happened to him with this discharge. When examining all the 
facts, he hopes the Board will find that his discharge and 
treatment by the Air Force was inappropriate and did not warrant 
the discharge he received. 

 

The applicant’s complete rebuttal is at Exhibit G. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

BCMR MEDICAL CONSULTANT’S OPINION: 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends a partial grant by 
changing the applicant’s narrative reason for separation to 
“Convenience of the Government,” or as a minimum amending the DD 
Form 214 to reflect separation for “Minor Disciplinary 
Infractions.” The BCMR Medical Consultant states that based on 
the preponderance of evidence, at least one of the applicant’s 
initial periods of tardiness could be clearly explained by a 
disruptive Circadian sleep-wake cycle. His initial period of 
tardiness is not well explained in the record, if based on the 
applicant’s changing duty shifts. Nevertheless, the legitimate 
concerns for a sleep rhythm disturbance (not Sleep Apnea) should 
have been considered a likely cause of the applicant’s instances 
of failure to go. However, removing these from consideration in 
the applicant’s discharge action leaves his other three offenses, 
that is: driving under the influence of alcohol (albeit a charge 
reportedly dismissed), improper use of a B-1 maintenance stand, 
and unlawfully striking a fellow airman in the face; the latter 
earning an Article 15. Thus, although it is clear the trigger 
for the applicant’s discharge was likely his tardiness for duty, 
he had already established a pattern of minor disciplinary 
infractions that were unrelated to a sleep disturbance or other 
medical condition. 

 

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


 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF BCMR MEDICAL CONSULTANT OPINION: 

 

If the Board supports the BCMR Medical Consultant’s findings, 
they must now consider his application still addressing the three 
issues that remain on his record. Two of these were off duty 
matters and the other was nothing more than a workplace 
notification that he was not using a B-1 maintenance stand 
properly. The maintenance stand issue was not disciplinary in 
nature or in any way connected to misconduct. There was no 
damage to any government property. He has previously provided 
the Board with documentation regarding the DUI charge. He was 
off duty and was convicted of driving while slightly impaired 
(less than .08 Blood Alcohol Content). The conviction was set-
aside by the Court of Arizona and the complaint was dismissed. 
Although he regrets this matter, it happened off-base and had no 
bearing or impact on his work. His Article 15 for Assault 
stemmed from an off-duty pushing and shoving match where there 
were no injuries other than a fingernail scrape on the other 
airman’s face. He was not the aggressor and tried to defuse the 
incident the best he could. He acted in self defense; however, 
was still punished. 

 

He would ask the Board to consider this information in their 
final decision. 

 

The applicant’s complete rebuttal is at Exhibit J. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 this case; however, we find insufficient evidence to 
grant the applicant’s requests. We note the BCMR Medical 
Consultant recommends partial relief in regard to changing the 
applicant’s narrative reason for separation based on the premise 
the applicant suffered from temporary sleep disturbance which was 
not considered by his chain of command as mitigating in his two 
instances of lateness for duty. While we acknowledge this may be 
true, we find the possibility of sleep disturbances insufficient 
to excuse his other three acts of misconduct. Therefore, we 
believe his current narrative reason for separation adequately 
describes the circumstances of his separation. In regard to the 


applicant’s request to change his characterization of service, we 
find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the 
discharge processing. 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 has provided 
no evidence which would lead us to believe the characterization 
of the service was contrary to the provisions of the governing 
regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses 
committed. Therefore, based on the foregoing, 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-2010-00368 in Executive Session on 19 April 2011, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair 

 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 

 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-00368: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Jan 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 17 Sep 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 23 Sep 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 1 Dec 10. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Dec 10. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Jan 11. 

 Exhibit H. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 7 Mar 11. 

 Exhibit I. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Mar 11. 

 Exhibit J. Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Mar 11. 

 

 

 

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 

Panel Chair