RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04126 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His narrative reason for separation be changed from 
misconduct to a medical discharge. 

 

2. He be authorized to use his Montgomery GI (MGI) Bill. 

 

2. He be reinstated to the rank/grade of E-3. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He has a sleep disorder and he suffered from a broken ankle 
while in the service. His Defense Counsel’s response was not 
considered for medical reasons. 

 

Additionally, his work ethic was not considered during the 
Article 15 process and there was no justification for his rank 
reduction. The Article 15 is incomplete and unsigned. 

 

Previous applications to upgrade his discharge were denied. He 
was unable to submit final documentation to the Board as he does 
not have medical insurance to receive care. 

 

In support of the appeal, the applicant provides his counsel’s 
response to his Article 15, excerpts from his medical records 
and Discharge Review Board correspondence. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 19 August 
1998. On 29 November 1999, the applicant was notified of his 
commander’s intent to discharge him from the Air Force for minor 
disciplinary infractions. Specifically, the applicant received 
an Article 15 for unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon; two 
Letters of Reprimand for lying to his supervisor and being late 
for work three times, and falling asleep during a test; and a 
Letter of Counseling for being late for work twice. The 
applicant waived his right to consult counsel and to submit 
matters on his behalf. 

 


On 6 December 1999, the staff judge advocate found the case 
legally sufficient. On 9 December 1999, the commander directed 
the applicant be separated with a general, under honorable 
conditions discharge. 

 

He was discharged on 15 December 1999 for misconduct. He was 
credited with 1 year, 3 months and 27 days of active duty 
service. 

 

The Air Force Discharge Review Board reviewed the applicant’s 
case on 9 April 2002 and concluded no change in his discharge 
was warranted. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The applicant 
requests a medical discharge. Although he suffered an ankle 
sprain during his service, it was not determined to impose a 
permanent impediment to duty warranting medical separation. The 
diagnosis of Personality Disorder falls under a group of mental 
conditions that are not considered disabilities. As such, it 
also would not qualify him for medical separation. 

 

The applicant was prescribed a sleep aid (Ambien) which could 
have contributed to his difficulty rising for work. However, 
the applicant’s misconduct also involved incidents that could 
not be attributed to the underlying sleep disturbance, if it 
existed. If the totality of the applicant’s misconduct, as 
contended by Defense Counsel, is attributed to his sleep 
disorder, the applicant still would have been at risk for a 
general discharge. 

 

If the Board considers changing the narrative reason for 
separation to Personality Disorder, it may pose a similarly, 
certainly not better, detriment to the applicant in terms of 
employment. Should the Board choose the alternative action, 
then an honorable service characterization should accompany this 
action in order to avoid detrimental action. 

 

The Medical Consultant found insufficient evidence of an error 
or injustice to warrant the desired change of record. 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at 
Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 6 September 2012, for review and comment within 


15 days (Exhibit D). 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 an error or injustice. We 
carefully considered the available evidence of record; however, 
we found no indication the actions taken to effect the 
applicant’s discharge was improper or contrary to the provisions 
of the governing instructions. Therefore we agree with the 
opinion and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and 
adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. 
Since we have found no error in the processing of his discharge, 
his request for reinstatement to the grade of E-3 is also 
denied. Additionally, the applicant has not provided sufficient 
evidence that warrants favorable consideration of his request 
for the MGI Bill. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought in this application. 

 

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-2011-04126 in Executive Session on 16 October 2012, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

, Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dtd 19 Sep 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Record. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dtd 9 Aug 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dtd 6 Sep 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair