RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01102 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be 
upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He believes the drugs administered to him during his enlistment 
caused grave mental illness and a lapse in good judgment. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides extracts from 
his service medical records. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force, on 8 Feb 78 for 
a period of four years. 

 

Subsequent to his reenlistment, on 2 Nov 87, the squadron 
commander notified him of administrative discharge board action 
for misconduct. The specific reasons were: 

 

 a. On or about 22 Dec 87, he with a co-conspirator, faked 
a home invasion wherein his girlfriend was raped, sodomized, and 
threatened with a firearm. 

 

 b. He was subsequently indicted under the Missouri 
criminal statutes for rape, sodomy, armed criminal action, and 
tampering with a victim. 

 

 c. On or about 9 Mar 90, he entered a negotiated plea of 
guilty to rape and tampering in exchange for a prosecution 
recommendation of 15 years for rape and 7 years for tampering. 

 


After consulting with counsel and having been advised of his 
rights, the applicant waived his right to an administrative 
discharge board (ADB). The Numbered Air Force/base staff judge 
advocate found the case file legally sufficient and recommended 
an UOTHC discharge. The discharge authority approved the UOTHC 
discharge, without probation or rehabilitation. 

 

The applicant was discharged, on 7 Jun 90, by reason of 
misconduct – civilian conviction, with service characterized as 
under other than honorable conditions. He was credited with 
12 years, 1 month, and 15 days of active duty service. 

 

On 23 Jan 96, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) 
denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his UOTHC 
discharge to honorable. They concluded the discharge was 
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of 
the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the 
discharge authority, and the applicant was provided full 
administrative due process (see AFDRB Hearing Record at 
Exhibit B). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. 

 

The applicant requests an upgrade from an UOTHC to an Under 
Honorable Conditions (General) discharge based on the assertion 
that "the drugs administered during my enlistment caused grave 
mental illness and a lapse of good judgment." In reviewing the 
applicant's claim, there must be evidence that an error or 
injustice occurred with the characterization of the involuntary 
separation due to a medical reason. The reviewer opines that 
there is no medical evidence that either medication used to 
treat the sarcoidosis or histoplasmosis caused or contributed to 
the criminal behavior which resulted in the UOTHC discharge. 
Although no performance records or profile documents were 
included for the review, there was no indication that any 
significant behavior or performance issues were evident up to 
the period of the criminal offenses which includes nearly four 
years prior to the criminal offenses. The reviewer opines that 
claims of criminal behavior and "grave mental illness" was due 
to the medical therapy he received is scientifically and 
medically unsubstantiated by the records submitted for review. 
Furthermore, there is no evidence of any mental health 
conditions or behavioral abnormalities prior to the criminal 
offenses which would necessitate a mental health evaluation. 
While the medical reviewer concedes that prolonged use of 
prednisone for treatment of sarcoidosis may be associated with 
potential adverse effects, there is no clear evidence that the 
applicant's criminal behavior was due to the medication as 
evidenced by the lack of any performance deficiencies or 
complaints of adverse effects over the course of treatment. 


Also, there were no narrative entries by the health care 
providers of any mental or physical adverse effects from the 
medication prescribed. In summary, the medical reviewer has 
identified insufficient medical justification to support the 
applicant's claim of "grave mental illness" or lapses in 
judgment resulting from the medication he received for treatment 
of his health condition. 

 

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

In his response to the Air Force evaluation, the applicant 
summarized his prescribed medication and provided documentation 
about the affects of the medications. 

 

The applicant’s 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. 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 to include his response to the Air Force evaluation; 
however, we note the applicant’s case has undergone an 
exhaustive review by the BCMR Medical Consultant and we did not 
find the evidence provided, sufficient to overcome his 
assessment of the case. Therefore, we agree with the Medical 
Consultant’s recommendation and adopt the rationale expressed as 
the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to 
sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an 
injustice. In view of the above and 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 material 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-2011-01102 in Executive Session on 3 November 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Mar 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, 

 dated 21 Sep 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Oct 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair