RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00313
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He has been awarded compensation for post traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD) from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA),
which is the reason he was abusing alcohol. He no longer abuses
alcohol and has been clean since 1986. He sees a psychologist on
a regular basis to deal with his PTSD. He is an upstanding
citizen of the United States.
He gave 14 years of service to his country, and Vietnam was the
cause of his PTSD.
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his
DVA decision letter, medical records, and documents pertaining to
his previous application to the AFBCMR.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 2 Nov 64, the applicant contracted his initial enlistment in
the Regular Air Force and was progressively promoted to the grade
of technical sergeant.
The following is a resume of the applicants Airman Performance
Reports (APRs):
- Reports closing 22 Jul 65, 24 Feb 66, and 24 Feb 67 reflect
ratings of Excellent, Outstanding and Outstanding.
- Reports closing 24 Feb 68 3 Dec 76, reflect overall
ratings of 9, with the exception of the APR closing 17 Apr 73
which reflects 7.
- Reports closing 3 Dec 77 and 19 Oct 78 had overall ratings
of 6 and 4 respectively.
On 20 Oct 78, the applicant was notified by his squadron
commander that he was recommending his discharge from the Air
Force for misconduct. The reasons for the proposed action were
the applicants frequent involvement of a discreditable nature
with civil and military authority. The applicant received three
letters of counseling (LOCs), two letters of reprimand (LORs),
six Article 15 punishments, two civil court convictions, and was
placed on the control roster for offenses ranging from financial
irresponsibility to alcohol abuse.
On 18 Nov 78, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the
notification of discharge and, after consulting with legal
counsel, offered a conditional waiver contingent upon receipt of
no less than a general discharge.
The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally
sufficient to support separation and recommended the
unconditional board waiver be accepted and the applicant be
discharged with a general discharge without probation and
rehabilitation.
On 15 Dec 78, the discharge authority accepted the conditional
waiver and directed the applicant be discharged with a general
discharge.
On 22 Dec 78, the applicant was discharged in the grade of
sergeant, under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for
Unsuitability, for misconduct and received a general discharge.
He served on active duty for a period of 14 years, 1 month, and
21 days.
Pursuant to the Boards request, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) provided a copy of an Investigative Report,
which is at Exhibit C.
On 1 Jun 11, a copy of the FBI report was forwarded to the
applicant for review and comment within 30 days. At the same
time, the AFBCMR staff offered the applicant an opportunity to
provide information pertaining to his activities since leaving
the service (Exhibit D).
The applicant responded with a personal letter. He entered the
Air Force on 2 Nov 64, and achieved the rank of technical
sergeant on 1 Jul 75. Prior to his termination from the Air
Force on 22 Dec 78, his service record was outstanding. When he
returned from Vietnam in 1969 he was suffering from undiagnosed
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Because he did not
possess the coping skills necessary to combat this disease, he
turned to alcohol. He later sought treatment; however, the
social and medical services in place at the time were not capable
of properly diagnosing his PTSD and providing him with adequate
treatment. He gave his country 14 years of his life, and knowing
what he now knows about PTSD, he should have been medically
retired. Since he left the Air Force he has obtained two
associate degrees, one in accounting and the other in computer
science. He was employed with the Oneda Corporation in Columbus,
GA from 1989-2008, and retired at age 62. He was licensed to
preach in 1993, and was ordained into the Gospel Ministry in
2010.
The applicant provided a character reference letter from his
Senior Pastor, copies of his associate degree certificates,
license to preach, and his Certificate of Ordination.
The applicants complete response, with attachments, is at
Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. After a
thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicants
submission, we are persuaded relief is warranted in this case.
While we found no evidence of an error or injustice with regards
to the discharge processing, it appears the discharge was
consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge
regulation and was within the commander's discretionary
authority; however, we feel there may have been underlying
reasons for his misconduct, i.e., alcohol abuse, which he states
was caused by PTSD. The applicant states when he returned from
Vietnam he suffered from PTSD, for which he was never diagnosed
or treated. In coming to our decision, we considered the
applicants 14 years of service, his performance reports, which
reflect predominantly outstanding performance, his numerous
awards and decorations, and his post-service accomplishments; on
balance we believe an upgrade is warranted. Therefore, while we
do not condone the behavior which led to his discharge or that
which is listed on his FBI report, overall it appears the
applicant has made a successful transition to civilian life. We
believe an upgrade of the characterization of his service to
honorable is warranted on the basis of clemency. Accordingly, we
recommend that his records be corrected as indicated below.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 22 December
1978, he was honorably discharged and furnished an Honorable
Discharge certificate.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2011-00313 in Executive Session on 21 Jul 11, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Jan 11, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report of Investigation, dated 4 Mar 11.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 1 Jun 11.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 18 Jun 11, w/atchs.
Panel Chair
On 12 Apr 78, the Air Force Discharge Review Board denied an appeal from the applicant to upgrade his discharge. _______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s request. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant indicates in his response that the Air Force evaluation contained an error,...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00424
___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 19 Apr 74, in the grade of airman basic (E-1), for a period of six years. Punishment imposed was a reduction in grade to airman (E-2) and forfeiture of $100 for one month; (10) O/a 3 and 4 Apr 78, applicant received an Article 15 for failure to go to his prescribed place of duty on time. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00915
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00915 HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded. On 24 Dec 64, the applicant was furnished an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge and was credited with 3 years, 7 months, and 22 days of active service. ...
As of this date, this office has received no response. We agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility that his separation code should remain the same since he did in fact, voluntarily request discharge for the good of the service. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01166
On 22 Nov 83, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of four years in the grade of staff sergeant. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. A complete copy of the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00438
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-00438 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant was discharged on 8 May 80. ______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02034
According to an AFOSI Report of Investigation (ROI), dated 3 Mar 89, an investigation was conducted around the period of 23 Jan - 7 Feb 89. On 6 Mar 89, the commander notified the applicant of his intent to recommend separation with a general discharge based on the Article 15. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice;...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00030
On 17 April 1972, the applicant’s commander forwarded the request to the group commander, recommending approval of the applicant’s request for discharge. He had served 1 year, 6 months and 17 days on active duty. The applicant has provided no evidence indicating the information in the discharge case file was erroneous, his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused their discretionary authority.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00131
On 12 Jan 78, the applicant amended his original conditional waiver and waived his rights associated with an administrative discharge board hearing contingent on his receipt of no less than a general discharge. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Feb 06. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Feb 06.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00723
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00723 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 3 SEP 2006 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. They found the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. Exhibit B.