RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01110 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be 
upgraded to honorable. 

 

2. His narrative reason for separation be change from misconduct 
(serious offense) to service connected disability or left blank. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

In 2003, he was granted temporary medical retirement. Starting 
in 2004, his squadron placed him on administrative hold so that 
he could not be medically retired. In 2006, he was court-
martialed. The military judge ordered that he be returned to 
active duty and suggested he be medically retired. 

 

His commander decided to discharge him for misconduct and that 
simply was not true. He has medical records dating back to 2003 
showing that he was medically disabled and his retirement was 
underway for years prior to his court-martial. 

 

He has service connected disabilities and is unable to work. In 
order to receive compensation for his disabilities, his 
discharge must be upgraded. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his 
medical profile, a copy of the findings of the Informal Physical 
Evaluation Board (IPEB), a copy of his final diagnosis and a 
copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge 
from Active Duty. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 


The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17 July 2001. 
On 12 April 2006, pursuant to a special court-martial (SPCM), he 
was convicted of having intercourse with women, not his wife and 
indecent assault. As a result of the SPCM, he was sentenced to 
2 months confinement, reduction to the grade of E-1 and 
forfeiture of $500 pay per month for two months. 

 

On 1 June 2006, the applicant was notified of his commander’s 
intent to discharge him from the Air Force for commission of a 
serious offense. On 1 June 2006, the applicant acknowledged his 
commander’s intent, his right to consult counsel and to submit 
statements on his behalf. The applicant submitted a statement 
on 9 June 2006. On 16 June 2006, the case was found legally 
sufficient. On 28 June 2006, the commander directed the 
applicant be discharged for commission of a serious offense and 
separated with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. 
Pursuant to AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, 
the case was forwarded to the Air Force Personnel Council 
(SAFPC) for dual processing. 

 

On 4 May 2007, the applicant was found unfit for duty by the 
Informal Physical Evaluation Board for Headaches, Nonepileptic 
Paroxysmal Spells and Episodic Vertigo. The IPEB recommended he 
be temporarily retired with a disability rating of 40 percent. 

 

On 24 May 2007, Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council 
directed the action under AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for 
Separation or Retirement, be terminated and the applicant’s 
discharge under AFI 36-3208, be approved. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states that Airmen are 
subject to discharge for commission of serious offenses if the 
specific circumstance merits separation. The circumstances in 
the applicant’s case warranted discharge. The discharge was 
consistent with procedural and substantive requirements of the 
discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the 
discharge authority. 

 

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant urges the Board to consider the facts provided. 
In 2004, he was found unfit for military duty and as a result, 
he was temporarily medically retired. His squadron discharged 
him and put misconduct on his DD Form 214 even though he was 
never counseled for any other incident since his court-martial. 
He has provided several documents as evidence and submitted 
several facts of injustice and errors that occurred that 


warrants a change in his discharge and narrative reason for 
separation. The entire discharge process was unjust to him and 
his family has suffered greatly. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 injustice. After 
careful consideration of the applicant’s request and the 
evidence presented, we are not persuaded that he was improperly 
discharged and that the approved service characterization should 
be upgraded. It appears that responsible officials applied 
appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and the 
applicant has not provided persuasive evidence demonstrating 
that pertinent regulations were violated; he was not afforded 
all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge or 
that his superiors abused their discretionary authority. We 
therefore agree with the recommendation of the Air Force office 
of primary responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant and 
adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. 
Accordingly, 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-2011-01110 in Executive Session on 20 October 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 


 , Member 

 

 

The following documentary evidence was: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Mar 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 3 Jun 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jun 11. 

 Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 20 Jun 11, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair