RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01828 

 

 COUNSEL: 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. He be medically retired as of the date of his separation 
(8 November 2010) and be placed on the Permanent Disability 
Retired List (PDRL) with a 30 percent disability rating. 

 

2. He be medically retired with 50 percent of his base pay from 
the date of his separation. 

 

3. He receive retirement back pay from the date of his 
separation. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The Secretary of the Air Force had to choose between medical 
retirement for a 20 year officer with severe bipolar disorder or 
discharge with no retirement. The Secretary chose discharge. 

 

In 2005, he began to demonstrate alcohol related misconduct 
which were known to the command. He was undergoing treatment at 
the time and his command understood the situation. His 
commander told him he would retire honorably. 

 

In 2009, a new squadron commander was assigned to the unit. He 
initiated separation action against him based on the alcohol 
related incidents from 2006 through 2008. The Board convened on 
9 February 2010 and voted to separate him from the Air Force 
with a general discharge. 

 

At the same time, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) found he did 
not meet retention standards and was diagnosed with bipolar 
disorder. An Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) found he 
was unfit for duty and recommended he be medically retired with 
a permanent disability rating of 30 percent. 

 

The applicant’s case was processed for dual-action. On 
3 November 2010, the Secretary of the Air Force approved the 
applicant’s discharge for misconduct. 

 

While he is responsible for his actions, the medical 
considerations must predominate. His conduct is not excusable, 
but it is explainable. When balanced against 20 years of 
faithful service, the misconduct should be subordinate to the 


medical conditions which played a direct role in causing the 
misconduct. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a legal brief, 
copies of the Board of Inquiry Transcript and other supporting 
documentation. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 5 September 1989 and 
received his commission on 27 August 2001. On 2 October 2009, 
the applicant received a Show Cause Notification of Action that 
was initiated against him by his commander. This notification 
required the applicant to show cause for retention on active 
duty. The commander initiated the action because the applicant 
engaged in serious criminal misconduct punishable by military 
and civilian authorities. 

 

On 22 January 2010, the applicant’s commander amended the Show 
Cause Memorandum and added that he was initiating the action 
against him for failure to show acceptable qualities of 
leadership required of an officer of his or her grade by serious 
or recurring misconduct punishable by military or civilian 
authorities. The applicant acknowledged this memorandum on 
22 January 2010. 

 

On 9 February 2010, pursuant to a Board of Inquiry, the Board 
found the applicant should not be retained in the United States 
Air Force. The Board recommended he be removed from active duty 
and receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. 
On 7 May 2010, an IPEB found the applicant was unfit and 
recommended he be medically retired with a disability rating of 
30 percent for bipolar disorder Type II with Generalized Anxiety 
Disorder. Pursuant to the dual-action processing, the Secretary 
directed the applicant be discharged under AFI 36-3206 and 
terminated the action under AFI 36-3212 on 30 June 2010. The 
Secretary of the Air Force disapproved the applicant’s 
resignation and directed he be discharged with a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge. He was credited with 20 years 
11 months and 4 days of active duty service. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSD recommends denial. There was no controversy 
surrounding the processing of the applicant’s disability 
evaluation or the recommendations made by the Board. There is a 


question as to the ultimate decision to separate the applicant 
administratively rather than medically. Accountability issues 
relating to mental illness are rarely clear cut and there is no 
consensus on how they should be evaluated and applied. The 
preponderance of the evidence reflects that no error or 
injustice occurred during the disability process. 

 

The complete DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. The Board determined there was no 
casual relationship between the member’s medical condition and 
his misconduct. The Air Force Personnel Board determined the 
applicant be discharged due to misconduct. The discharge was 
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of 
the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the 
discharge authority. 

 

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant’s attorney states the Board of Inquiry was not 
asked to find a casual connection between the member’s medical 
condition and his misconduct. The Board had no choice but to 
find misconduct under existing law. The Board voted against 
retention which elevated the misconduct over the consequences of 
the applicant’s mental health issues. 

 

The judgment call should have gone the applicant’s way. Mental 
illness does not excuse misconduct: it explains it. The Board 
should be offended by the conduct of the command who had a 
disregard for law and ethics in an attempt to influence the 
outcome and interfere with regulatory requirements. The moral 
thing here is to grant relief because it is proper and the 
benefit should go to the applicant. 

 

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE ADVISORY: 

 

The IMA Medical Advisor to the BCMR Senior Medical Advisor 
recommends denial. The applicant’s mental health history from 
2005 and 2009 includes multiple mental health diagnosis 
including generalized anxiety disorder, depression, and alcohol 
dependence. The applicant had regular and consistent contact 
with the mental health system during the four years prior to his 
discharge. Despite the pattern of behavior and work performance 
issues, the maintenance of social functioning and good family 
and friend relationships were noted. Upon the recommendation of 
the mental health staff, an MEB was requested in 2009. The MEB 


narrative summary recommended the continuation of mental health 
treatment, non-deployable status and assessed a fair prognosis. 
On 7 May 2010, the IPEB assigned a 30 percent disability rating 
for bipolar disorder II with generalized anxiety disorder. 

 

There are two important facts to consider: Was the applicant’s 
discordant behavior the result of his mental health diagnosis 
and could these conditions override prudent judgment and 
professional conduct, and Was there an inequity or injustice 
with the administrative discharge versus a permanent retirement 
with a 30 percent disability rating given the circumstances of 
his mental health condition? While the IMA Medical Advisor 
concedes these mental health conditions possibly contributed to 
the inappropriate behavior and sub-optimal performance issues; 
professional conduct and prudent judgment capacity existed to a 
sufficient level of the where the applicant’s lapses in judgment 
were not the result of these conditions. The record reflects 
periods throughout the applicant’s service where his performance 
demonstrated the mental capacity to adequately perform his 
assigned duties. Thus, the decision to indulge in reckless and 
irresponsible behavior more aptly demonstrated a choice of the 
applicant’s will and not the result of diminished mental 
capacity. 

 

The applicant’s military and civilian infractions justifiably 
triggered legal review for administrative separation. SAFPC 
makes the final decision for cases of members with an unfit 
finding who are also pending administrative separation. There 
appears to be no inequity or injustice with an administrative 
separation determination. The persistent pattern of 
inappropriate behavior and sub-standard job performance 
justifies the SAFPC determination of a general discharge. 

 

The complete IMA Medical Advisor’s evaluation is at Exhibit G. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Under the guise of medical opinion the medical advisory does no 
more than recapitulate the obvious – a mentally ill man who 
qualified for medical retirement engaged, while ill, in some 
minor misconduct. The physician reviewer has no professional or 
ethical right to comment because he does not know. The 
applicant’s counsel requests the Board rely upon the health care 
professional who actually treated the applicant and who felt 
strongly the medical condition should predominate. 

 

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit I. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 


1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by 
existing law or regulations. 

 

2. The application was timely filed. 

 

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. We 
carefully considered counsel’s arguments as well as the 
available evidence of record; however, we found no indication 
the actions taken to affect the applicant’s discharge and 
characterization of his service were improper, contrary to the 
provisions of the governing instructions, or based on factors 
other than his own behavior. Furthermore, we are not persuaded 
by his assertions that the decision to discharge him from the 
Air Force for his misconduct, rather than permit his medical 
retirement, was inappropriate or unjust. Furthermore, we note 
the applicant faced a dual-action consideration through the 
Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council who deliberated on 
whether to separate him administratively, as happened, vice 
retirement. After reviewing all available facts and evidence of 
the case, we find no causal relationship between the applicant’s 
medical condition and his egregious misconduct. Therefore we 
agree with the Air Force offices of primary responsibility to 
include the IMA Medical Consultant opinions and recommendations 
and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that 
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. 

 

4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 BCMR Docket Number 
BC-2011-01828 in Executive Session on 14 February 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

, Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 


The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number 
BC-2011-01828 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 May 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 10 Jun 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 11 Jul 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Jul 11. 

 Exhibit F. Applicant’s Response, dated 10 Aug 11. 

 Exhibit G. IMA Medical Advisor, dated 18 Oct 11. 

 Exhibit H. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Nov 11. 

 Exhibit I. Applicant’s Response, dated 9 Dec 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair