RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04017 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His records be corrected to reflect that: 

 

1. He was retired or medically retired, instead of being 
discharged. 

 

2. He be paid for 29 days of leave he lost. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. Since being discharged from the Air Force, he has been 
receiving benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) 
at a rate of 100 percent for his service connected disabilities. 
He is also receiving disability compensation from the Social 
Security Administration (SSA). 

 

2. He was hospitalized from Jul 97 through Mar 98 and, 
therefore, was unable to take leave. As a result, he lost 
29 days of leave. He was not compensated for the leave, nor was 
he given the opportunity to take terminal leave. He should 
receive some form of compensation. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides various 
correspondence from the DVA, including his DVA rating decision. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted 
in the Regular Air Force on 18 Jun 81. 

 

On 4 Jun 97, court-martial charges were preferred against the 
applicant. The reasons for the action included two 
specifications of making and uttering checks without sufficient 


funds in violation of Article 123a, Uniform Code of Military 
Justice (UCMJ); and one specification of failure to obey a 
general order by remaining delinquent in the payment of his 
government travel card in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. 

 

On 3 Jul 97, he became suicidal and was medically evacuated from 
his base and ultimately became an inpatient in the psychiatric 
ward of Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC), resulting in an 
indefinite delay in his trial. While at WRAMC, the applicant 
was sent to a Sanity Board pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial 
706. The Board determined the applicant had several psychiatric 
disorders, but also concluded he was capable of understanding 
the nature of his crimes at the time he committed them and 
competent to assist in the presentation of his defense. 

 

On 8 Oct 97, doctors at WRAMC issued a memorandum stating that 
returning the applicant to Korea to stand trial was against 
medical advice and defense counsel requested a change of venue. 
However, on 9 Jan 98, the military judge denied the request and 
the court-martial was scheduled for 10 Feb 98. 

 

On 26 Jan 98, the applicant submitted a request for discharge in 
lieu of court-martial in accordance with AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, lengthy service 
consideration, and convening of a Medical Evaluation Board 
(MEB). 

 

On 3 Feb 98, the applicant’s requests were forwarded to the 
court-martial convening authority who granted the applicant’s 
request for discharge in lieu of court-martial, but recommended 
his requests for lengthy service probation and an MEB be denied. 

 

On 5 Feb 98, the case was determined to be legally sufficient. 
In addressing the applicant’s request for an MEB, the reviewer 
noted the absence of any indication from the applicant’s 
attending psychiatrists at WRAMC that an MEB was warranted. 

 

On 10 Feb 98, the Major Air Command Commander concurred with the 
recommendation to discharge the applicant in lieu of court-
martial and recommended he be denied lengthy service probation. 
On 11 Mar 98, the Secretary of the Air Force denied the 
applicant’s request for lengthy service probation and directed 
that the approved administrative discharge be executed. 

 

On 23 Mar 98, the applicant was furnished a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge and was credited 16 years, 
9 months, and 6 days of total active service. 

 

On 15 May 98, according to information provided by the Defense 
Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), the applicant was 
provided a lump sum payment of $3,559.80 for the sale of 60 days 
of leave. 

 


The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the AFBCMR Medical 
Consultant which is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial, indicating 
there is no evidence of an error or injustice. In consideration 
of the applicant's request, there must be clear and convincing 
medical evidence of an error or injustice. In view of the 
plethora of concurrent administrative issues apparent during the 
matter under review, several salient issues must be addressed to 
determine whether a medical retirement should have occurred. 
First, was a pre-existing mental health condition evident prior 
to the applicant’s misconduct? A review of the mental health 
and medical records reveals no indication of such a condition. 
Additionally, the applicant’s performance reports indicate 
satisfactory or above average performance with several awards 
and decorations noted. Furthermore, in a 30 Jan 98 memorandum, 
the applicant indicates that he started getting depressed about 
being away from his family and started drinking and working long 
hours to cope. Hence, there is no clear evidence of a pre-
existing mental health condition. Second, did the applicant 
have a severe mental health disease or defect at the time of the 
misconduct? The expert opinion of the Sanity Board at WRAMC 
represents the most objective evidence of the applicant's mental 
state and indicates the applicant did not have a severe mental 
health disease or defect at the time of his misconduct. The 
Board found he was able to appreciate the nature and quality or 
wrongfulness of his misconduct and concluded that he possessed 
sufficient mental capacity to understand the nature of the 
proceeding and participate in his defense. Third, in evaluating 
the appropriateness of an MEB, AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation 
for Retention, Retirement, and Separation, references use of the 
MEB process for a medical or mental health condition which is 
unfitting for service. In consideration of performance reports 
and decorations reviewed in the applicant's records leading to 
the period of involuntary hospitalization, there appears to be 
no unfitting or disqualifying medical or mental health 
conditions present. Moreover, AFI 36-3212, indicates that those 
charged with one or more offenses that could result in dismissal 
or punitive discharge, and those convicted and sentenced to 
dismissal or punitive discharge, may not undergo disability 
evaluation unless: 1) a medical board questions a member's 
mental capacity or responsibility, or 2) the commander 
exercising court martial jurisdiction decides whether to proceed 
with court martial or dismiss, withdraw, or hold the charges in 
abeyance until completion of the disability evaluation. 
Therefore, a MEB would not be warranted in this instance since 
the commanding officer elected not to pursue a disability 
evaluation. Ultimately, the applicant elected to terminate his 
military career with a General Discharge under AFI 36-3208 in 


lieu of a court-martial for the stated offenses. The decision 
of the commanding officer and in-patient psychiatrists not to 
pursue a MEB is wholly justified in the context of an impending 
court martial. Furthermore, the Department of Veteran Affairs 
(DVA), operating under Title 38, United States Code, is 
authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition 
determined service-connected, without regard to its impact upon 
a service member's retainability, fitness to serve, or narrative 
reason for release from military service. 

 

A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is 
at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 
22 Jun 12 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this 
date, no response has been received by this office (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 error or injustice that would 
warrant changing the basis for the applicant’s discharge. We 
took notice of his complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation 
of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the 
basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim 
of an error or injustice. As for his contention that he lost 29 
days of leave, we do not find his uncorroborated assertions 
sufficient to convince us he was somehow precluded from taking 
or selling his leave. In fact, information provided by the 
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) indicates that he 
was able to sell 60 days of leave in conjunction with his 
discharge. Therefore, absent 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-2011-04017 in Executive Session on 26 Jul 12, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Oct 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, 

 dated 21 Jun 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 Jun 12. 

 

 

 

 

 
Panel Chair