RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2011-00661 

COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His medical condition be reevaluated by competent doctors, and if 
his allegations are found to be true, he then requests: 

 

1. The negative annotations related to his condition be removed 
from his record. 

 

2. His two Article 15 actions be removed from his record. 

 

3. His referral Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) closing 
31 August 2004 and 31 August 2005, respectively, be voided and 
removed from his record. 

 

4. His rank to staff sergeant (SSgt) (E-5) be restored with his 
original date of rank of 20 December 1999. 

 

5. His condition be evaluated by an active duty Medical 
Evaluation Board (MED) to determine if a medical retirement is 
appropriate. 

 

6. The reason for his discharge be changed. 

 

7. His Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) expiration date be recalculated 
to reflect a corrected date. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His medical condition was misdiagnosed by military doctors. As a 
result, he received two Article 15s, a demotion in rank, and a 
30-day incarceration in Correctional Custody. In addition, his 
separation resulted in high-year of tenure (HYT) expiration. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement and copies of personnel records and medical records. 

 

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

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 


STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who 
entered active duty on 10 April 1992 in the grade of airman basic 
(E-1). He served in the Aircraft Armament Systems career field 
and was progressively promoted to the grade of SSgt. 

 

In December 2003, while on active duty, the applicant self-
referred to the Life Skills Support Center (LSSC) for feelings of 
hopelessness and depression. A Mental Health Record, dated 
29 December 2003, indicates he was diagnosed with Dysthymic 
Disorder, Late Onset. The applicant continued treatment at the 
LSSC for close to two years. A LSSC Record, dated 2 August 2005, 
indicates, the applicant did not have a medical condition that 
would warrant referral to an MEB in accordance with Air Force 
Instruction 48-123. It was noted that he was receiving care that 
met or exceeded the services indicated for someone with his 
diagnosis and conditions. The Inpatient Psychiatry Service 
physician indicated the applicant’s Personality Disorder and 
Dysthymia Disorder was so severe that his ability to function 
effectively in the military environment was significantly 
impaired. It was also indicated that he was not suitable for 
retention in the Air Force and should be separated as soon as 
possible. The applicant was informed of the decision, agreed 
with the recommendation, and desired separation from the Air 
Force. 

 

On 22 April 2004, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling 
(LOC) for being late to work. The applicant responded that he 
was currently undergoing medical treatment and that his doctors 
should be contacted in order to explain why he was late for work. 
His doctors responded that the applicant’s tardiness to work was 
not part of what he was being treated for, but was a behavior 
problem which should be dealt with using administrative actions. 

 

On 12 May 2004, the applicant was late to work again. On 22 June 
2004, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for 
being late to work eight out of nine duty days from the periods 
10 June 2004 to 22 June 2004. On 28 June 2004, he received an 
LOC for being late to work on 28 June 2004. On 21 July 2004, he 
received an LOR for failure to fulfill the responsibilities of a 
Non-commissioned officer (NCO). 

 

The applicant received a referral EPR for the period 1 September 
2003 through 31 August 2004. The EPR cited the repeated 
counseling for unexcused absences and the LOR for failure to meet 
responsibilities of an NCO. It also indicated the applicant had 
excessive absenteeism which led subordinates to seek taskings and 
guidance from other supervisors/NCOs. 

 

On 15 February 2005, the applicant received an LOR indicating he 
had been late to work 120 times since his last LOR, dated 22 June 
2004. In addition he missed five appointments, one briefing, and 
was not available for escort duty during the required time. 

 


On 9 May 2005, the applicant’s commander offered nonjudicial 
punishment to the applicant for being absent without authority 
from 12 April 2005 to 14 April 2005, in violation of Article 86, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The applicant accepted 
the offer of non-judicial punishment and waived his right to 
demand a court-martial. The applicant provided the commander a 
written response and also made a personal appearance before the 
commander. After considering the applicant’s submissions and the 
evidence in the case, the commander concluded the applicant had 
committed the offense and imposed punishment consisting of a 
suspended reduction to the grade of senior airman (E-4). The 
applicant did not appeal his commander’s decision to the appeal 
authority and the Article 15 was reviewed and found to be legally 
sufficient. 

 

The applicant was accused of failing to go to his appointed place 
of duty on 7 June 2005. Based on this incident, his commander 
vacated the suspension of the applicant’s reduction to the grade 
of senior airman with a new date of rank of 17 May 2005. 
Subsequently, the applicant received Article 15 punishment for 
failing to go to his appointed place of duty on 23-24 June 2005. 
His punishment consisted of 30-days of correctional custody. 

 

The applicant received a referral EPR rendered for the period 
1 September 2004 through 31 August 2005; however, the report did 
not make it into the applicant’s permanent record by the time he 
separated from the Air Force. 

 

Since the applicant was reduced to the grade of senior airman and 
had over nine years and six months service, his HYT was changed 
to the maximum of four months after his effective date of 
demotion. As a result, the Advanced Personnel Data System (APDS) 
automatically projected him for separation 180 days prior to his 
established date of separation. 

 

The applicant was honorably released from active duty on 
1 December 2005 due to reduction in force. He served 13 years, 
7 months, and 22 days on active duty. 

 

A Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Rating Decision, dated 
7 July 2008, indicates the applicant received service connection 
for Sleep Apnea at a 30 percent disability rating; and Dysthymic 
Disorder and Right Cheek Scar, both rated at 0 percent disability 
ratings. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denying the applicant’s request to set 
aside his nonjudicial punishments or vacation action. JAJM 
states the applicant’s position is not supported by the evidence 
or by what is included in his application. Based on the facts 
available to the commander at the time, there is no question that 
the commander acted within the bounds of his discretionary 


authority. The applicant was afforded all his procedural rights 
during the Article 15 and vacation action proceedings. The 
commander did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner. The 
commander had first-hand access to the facts and a unique 
appreciation for the needs of morale and discipline in his 
command. The commander relied upon sound evidence in determining 
the nonjudicial punishment was appropriate and that the 
suspension should be vacated. 

 

The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denying the applicant’s request to change 
the reason for separation. DPSOS states that 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. The applicant provided 
no facts warranting a change to his narrative reason for 
separation. 

 

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denying the applicant’s request to void the 
contested reports. DPSID states the applicant’s referral EPR 
closing 31 August 2005 did not make it into his permanent record 
prior to his separation from the Air Force. In regard to the 
contested report closing 31 August 2004, there is no evidence the 
contested report is unjust or inaccurate. The applicant believes 
that his conduct during the reporting period can be attributed to 
factors that were not taken into account for an evaluation; 
however, he does not provide strong enough documentation to 
support any of his allegations. An evaluation report is 
considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the 
time it is rendered. Once a report is accepted for file, only 
strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal 
from an individual’s record. The burden of proof is on the 
applicant. He has not substantiated the contested report was not 
rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge 
available at the time. 

 

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

AFPC/DPSOE defers to the recommendation of AFLOA/JAJM regarding 
the applicant’s request to set aside his Article 15s. Should the 
Board remove the 7 June 2005 Article 15 vacating the suspended 
reduction in grade, the applicant’s rank would be restored to 
SSgt with a date of rank of 20 December 1999. 

 

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit F. 

 

AFPC/DPSIT recommends denying the applicant’s request to have his 
MGIB expiration date recalculated based on the information 
provided. 

 

The complete DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit G. 

 


_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 13 September 2011, for review and comment within 
30 days. 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 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 offices of primary responsibility and adopt 
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that 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-2011-00661 in Executive Session on 1 November 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-00661: 

 

Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, dated 11 Feb 11, w/atchs. 

Exhibit B. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 23 Mar 11. 

Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 18 Apr 11. 

Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 17 Jun 11. 


Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 11 Jul 11. 

Exhibit F. Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 19 Jul 11. 

Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Sep 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

Panel Chair