AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00161 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

IN THE MATTER OF:   
 
     
 
 
 
     
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:  
 
1. His general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded 
to honorable.   
 
2. His  narrative  reason  for  separation  be  changed  from 
misconduct to a medical discharge. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
He  was  not  properly  evaluated  prior  to  his  discharge.    His 
medical records show that he was trying to get the proper help. 
 
The applicant provides no supporting documentation. 
 
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  on  30  August 
2005.    Data  extracted  from  the  Air  Force  advisories  show  the 
applicant  was  notified  of  his  commander’s  intent  to  discharge 
him  from  the  Air  Force  for  misconduct:    minor  disciplinary 
infractions  and  for  conditions  that  interfere  with  military 
service:  Mental Disorder – Adjustment Disorders and Conditions 
that  interfere  with  military  service  mental  disorders  other 
disorders. Specifically, the applicant received two Article 15’s 
and a Letter of Reprimand.   On 4 December 2008, the staff judge 
advocate  found  the  case  legally  sufficient.    The  applicant  was 
separated with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  
He was credited with 1 year, 3 months and 27 days of active duty 
service. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSOS  recommends  denial.    According  to  AFI  36-3208 
paragraph  1.18.2,  a  general  discharge  is  appropriate  when 
significant  negative  aspects  of  an  airman’s  conduct  or 
performance  of  duty  outweighs  positive  aspects  of  the  airman’s 
military  record.    The  applicant’s  misconduct  in  this  case 
clearly  outweighs  the  positive  aspects  of  his  service.    The 

commander stated before recommending discharge that every effort 
was  made  by  the  members  supervision  to  rehabilitate  him.    The 
record  shows  the  applicant  was  counseled  on  numerous  occasions 
for his behavior and was afforded an opportunity to overcome his 
deficiencies.  The applicant’s incidents of misconduct disrupted 
good order, discipline and morale within the military community; 
hence the discharge was appropriate. 
 
The  discharge,  to  include  the  character  of  service,  was 
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements  of 
the  discharge  instruction  and  was  within  the  discretion  of  the 
discharge authority.  The applicant did not provide any evidence 
of  an  error  or  injustice  that  occurred  in  the  discharge 
processing.  
 
The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial.    The  record 
indicates  that  the  applicant  received  periodic  evaluations  and 
treatment  through  Life  Skills  Support  Center  (mental  health 
clinic).    None  of  the  evidence  reflects  the  existence  of  a 
disqualifying mental disorder that should have been referred to 
a  Medical  Evaluation  Board  (MEB)  and  processing  through  the 
Disability  Evaluation  System  (DES).    The  applicant’s  primary 
mental  diagnosis  was  Adjustment  Disorder,  a  condition  not 
considered  a  disability  in  accordance  with  AFI  36-3212  and  DoD 
Instructions  1332.38  Physical  Disability  Evaluation,  which  when 
it significantly interferes with military service, may result in 
involuntary administrative discharge.  
 
The  applicant  has  been  awarded  disability  compensation  by  the 
Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)  for  a  condition  found 
service connected, however, this action does not invalidate the 
clinical assessments of  competent mental health authorities at 
the time of his military service; particularly in the context of 
the  misconduct.    Regardless  of  the  name  assigned,  many  mental 
conditions  may  present  with  overlapping  symptoms  at  a  given 
time.  These even vary through further observation and treatment 
over an extended prior of time or after evaluation by different 
health care providers.  The applicant’s treatment records do not 
disclose  duty-limiting  compensable  mental  disorders  that  should 
have been the cause for career termination. 
 
There  is  no  indication  that  any  diagnosed  disorder  obstructed 
the  applicant’s  ability  to  distinguish  right  from  wrong  or 
rendered  him  incompetent  in  thought  processes  and  decision 
making.    Even  if  the  applicant’s  reason  for  separation  is 
changed to an Adjustment Disorder, the established character of 
service  could  remain  unchanged.    If  the  misconduct  is  believed 
to be the direct result of the underlying mental disorder, then 
one  can  also  conceive  the  acts  of  conduct  could  be  mitigated.  
The  consultant  opines  the  applicants  assignment  to  Security 
Forces  likely  mandated  a  higher  standard  of  conduct;  hence  the 
possible  perception  of  harshness  in  the  decision  to 
administratively discharge him for misconduct. 
 

 2

The  hypothetical  scenario  that  the  applicant  concurrently 
received  an  MEB  and  was  found  unfit  by  a  physical  Evaluation 
Board for Anxiety Disorder or other compensable mental disorder, 
he would be the subject of a dual-action review of his case by 
the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  Personnel  Council  which  would 
decide what would be the most appropriate basis for separation, 
administration versus medical.  Based on the evidence presented, 
it  is  likely  the  previously  approved  administrative  discharge 
would have been executed.   
 
The applicant is advised that the military DES, operating under 
Title  10  USC  only  offers  compensation  for  the  conditions  that 
cause  career  termination,  and  then  only  to  the  degree  of 
impairment present at the snapshot in time of final disposition.  
Neither  Post-Traumatic  Stress  Disorder  nor  an  Anxiety  Disorder 
was the cause for terminating the applicant’s career.   The DVA 
operates  under  a  different  set  of  laws  and  is  authorized  to 
offer  compensation  for  any  medical  condition  for  which  it 
establishes  a  nexus  with  military  service  without  regard  for 
impact on a service member’s fitness to serve. 
 
The applicant has not met the burden of proof of an error that 
warrants the desired change of the record.   
 
The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant’s  complete  evaluation  is  at 
Exhibit D 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
The  applicant  contends  he  did  not  charge  into  the  commander’s 
office or attempt to attack anyone.  He simply tried to leave to 
cool  off.    Additionally,  he  takes  issue  with  the  reference  to 
the  training  course;  he  was  told  by  a  sergeant  that  he  could 
take leave and the course would be rescheduled.  Otherwise, the 
advisories are correct 
 
The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit G. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
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 

 3

opinion  and  recommendation  of  the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  and 
the  Air  Force  office  of  primary  responsibility  and  adopt  their 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has 
not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the interest 
of  justice,  we  considered  upgrading  the  discharge  based  on 
clemency;  however,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  by  the  applicant 
attesting  to  a  successful  post-service  adjustment  in  the  years 
since his separation, we are not inclined to extend clemency at 
this time.  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  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-2012-00161  in  Executive  Session  on  14  November  2012,  under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dtd 13 Jan 12. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Record. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dtd 26 Apr 12. 
 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dtd 10 Oct 12. 
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dtd 10 Oct 12.    
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dtd 10 Oct 12. 
 
 
 
 
                                    
                                   Panel Chair 
 
 

  Panel Chair 
  Member 
  Member 

 
 

 
 

 4