RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01755
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His discharge be upgraded.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He has a service-connected disability which he incurred or was
aggravated while serving in the Air Force - in the line of duty.
He would like to be treated by the DVA but they refuse to treat
him for his injury.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 19 May 1966.
The record reflects the applicant had a series of unauthorized
absences from duty and on the applicants last absence of 41 days
charges were preferred for disposition by an appropriate type of
court. The pending request for discharge was initiated
immediately following the notification to the applicant of the
pending charges and such request, until acted upon, effectively
stays the court-martial proceedings.
The applicant received punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, on
three different occasions, the three punishments being reduction
to airman basic and two separate correctional custody sentences
of 30 days each.
On 20 March 1967, the applicant was sentenced in civil court
to 50 days confinement for auto theft.
The applicant received a psychiatric evaluation dated
10 March 1967 and was diagnosed with a sociopathic personality,
anti-social type, chronic and moderate modes.
The acting staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient
and recommended discharge.
On 21 July 1967, after being counseled, the applicant requested
discharge under AFM 39-12, paragraph 2-78 for the good of the
service.
On 24 August 1967, the discharge authority concurred with the
recommendations and directed an undesirable discharge. The
applicant was discharged and received a UOTHC discharge on
25 August 1967. He served 8 months and 17 days on active duty.
On 28 August 1975, 25 July 1977 and 5 April 1978, the Air Force
Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the
applicants request that his undesirable discharge be upgraded
(Exhibit B).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the applicant did not
submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that
occurred in the discharge processing. He provided no facts
warranting a change to his character of service. Based on the
documentation on file in the master personnel records, the
discharge to include the applicants characterization of service
was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements
of the discharge Manuel and was within the discretion of the
discharge authority.
The DPSOS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The BCMR Medical
Consultant states he found no evidence of an inequity or
impropriety in the processing of his discharge and further opines
he has not met the burden of proof of an error or injustice that
warrants a change of the record. The board may elect to invoke
its authority for an upgrade to General (under honorable
conditions), based upon clemency, noting the applicants likely
need for DVA medical care and the likelihood that his diagnosed
sociopathic personality, anti-social type, chronic played a
contributory, albeit not excusable, role in his disregard for the
consequences of his actions.
The BCMR Medical Consultants complete evaluation is at Exhibit
D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 26 January 2011, copies of the Air Force evaluations were
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days
(Exhibit D). 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 opinion and the
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility
and the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as
the basis for our conclusion the applicant has failed to sustain
his burden of proof of the existence 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 the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2010-01755 in Executive Session on 3 March 2011, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2010-01755 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 April 2010, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicants Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 9 November 2010.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant,
dated 21 January 2011.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 January 2011.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02923
DPSD states the preponderance of evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the disability process or at the time of the applicants separation. The complete DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 25 Mar 11 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01197
The evaluation officer recommended the applicant be discharged and furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge certificate as recommended by the commander. On 24 February 1981, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged and furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge certificate. 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 BCMR Medical...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02955
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02955 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation be changed from personality disorder to medical discharge. She was discharged for a diagnosed personality disorder however, at the time of the diagnosis she was receiving medical treatment from Mental Health and was...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02109
The Medical Consultant acknowledges the applicant's implicit contention that because the DVA awarded him a disability rating for PTSD; during the same period, he received the 40 percent rating for back pain; which then formed the basis for a change of the record and medical retirement via the PDBR. Thus, the presence of a medical condition that was not unfitting while in service, and was not the cause of separation or retirement, that may later progress in severity causing disability or was...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04897
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04897 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation be changed from Pregnancy or Childbirth to Medical Retirement. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was discharged because of her pregnancy; however her...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04495
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04495 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation be changed from Failed Medical/Physical Procurement to Medical discharge. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was discharged for a medical condition which is...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00353
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS does not provide a recommendation. The Medical Consultant states that according to the clinical notes in the applicants records, on 10 Nov 08, the applicant indicated that she had knee problems prior to enlistment but had not sought medical care and failed to report this information to MEPS prior to her enlistment. It must be noted the Air Force disability boards must rate disabilities...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02385
On 13 Feb 75, the discharge authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed the applicant be discharged with an undesirable discharge without probation and rehabilitation. Based upon the available evidence, currently and at the time of the applicant's discharge, the BCMR Medical Consultant finds no procedural errors or injustice in the actions taken by the discharge authority in the characterization of the applicant's service. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03928
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03928 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reentry (RE) code of 4K, which denotes medically disqualified or pending medical evaluation board (MEB) or physical evaluation board (PEB) be changed to a RE code that will allow her to reenlist without a waiver. On 27 March 2002, the applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01645
The Air Force Special Operations Command SJA recommended the applicant be discharged in lieu of trial and directed that he be separated with a, general (under honorable conditions), or UOTHC discharge. A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) considered the applicants case based on his diagnosis of PTSD and recommended the applicants case be referred to the IPEB. On 18 Mar 10, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicants request for an upgrade of his UOTHC discharge to...