DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01253 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED: NO 

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
 
IN THE MATTER OF:   
 
   
 
   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His  general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded 
to honorable. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
He suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) which was 
caused  by  his  service  as  an  Army  Combat  Infantryman.    His 
service  connected  mental  disability  was  not  considered  during 
his time in the Air Force.  He was rated 100 percent disabled by 
the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)  and  he  was  also  rated 
disabled by the Social Security Administration.   
 
He  requests  his  discharge  be  reviewed  for  upgrade  due  to  this 
evidence not being considered during his Air Force service.  
 
In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  submits  a  personal 
statement, DD Form 293,  Application  for  the  Review  of  Discharge 
from  the  Armed  Forces  of  the  United  States,  DVA  Rating,  DVA 
Summary  of  Benefits,  Social  Security  Benefit,  DD  Form  214s, 
Report of Separation 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  5  January 
1972.  On 3 July 1973, he was tried and convicted by a special 
court-martial  for  being  absent  without  leave  (AWOL),  in 
violation  of  Article  86,  Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice.    He 
was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, reduction to the grade 
of  airman  basic  and  to  be  confined  with  hard  labor  for  two 
months.    The  convening  authority  approved  the  sentence  on 
11 September 1973.   
 

On  30  May  1977,  the  Air  Force  Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB) 
upgraded  the  applicant’s  service  characterization  from  a  bad 
conduct  discharge  to  general  (under  honorable  conditions).    On 
19  March  1979,  the  AFDRB  denied  the  applicant’s  request  to 
upgrade his discharge from general to honorable. 
 
Pursuant  to  the  Board's  request  for  information,  the  FBI 
indicated that, on the basis of the evidence provided, they were  
unable to locate an arrest record pertaining to the applicant. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFLOA/JAJM  recommends  denial.    The  applicant  requests  his 
discharge  be  upgraded  to  honorable.    While  they  were  unable  to 
review  the  record  of  trial,  the  applicant  alleges  no  error  or 
injustice  in  the  processing  of  the  special  court-martial.    The 
applicant  pled  guilty  to  the  charge  and  specifications  during 
the  trial.    The  military  judge  explained  the  elements  of  the 
offenses  and  the  applicant  explained  in  his  own  words  why  he 
believed he was guilty.   
 
The applicant contends that his PTSD should have been considered 
during  his  court-martial;  however,  there  is  no  indication  that 
condition  was  known  at  the  time.    The  DVA  did  not  grant  the 
applicant’s  full  disability  until  2001.    Additionally,  he  did 
not allege stress or combat disorder during the court.  He only 
stated  that  he  went  AWOL  on  two  separate  occasions  because  he 
did not want to leave for an unaccompanied tour and believed he 
could make more money as a bricklayer in his home town. 
 
Clemency  in  this  case  would  be  unfair  to  those  individuals  who 
honorably served their country while in uniform.   
 
The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
The applicant states he truly believes serving as an Infantryman 
in  Vietnam  played  a  significant  role  in  his  breaking  the  law.  
Prior  to  his  court-martial  the  Psychologists  acknowledged  that 
he suffered from anxiety and depression and that he had to learn 
to cope with it. 
 
The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
 
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

2 

 
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.  We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice 
that  occurred  during  the  discharge  process.    Based  on  the 
available  evidence  of  record,  it  appears  the  discharge  was 
consistent  with  the  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge 
regulation  and  within  the  commander's  discretionary  authority.  
The  applicant  has  provided  no  evidence,  which  would  lead  us  to 
believe the characterization of the service was contrary to the 
provisions of the governing regulation, or unduly harsh.  In the 
interest of justice we considered upgrading the discharge based 
on clemency; however, there was no evidence submitted to compel 
us  to  recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  on  that  basis.  
Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find 
no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
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-2012-01253  in  Executive  Session  on  30  August  2012, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  BCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-01253 was considered: 
 

 Panel Chair 
 Member 
 Member 

  
  
 

 
 
 

 

3 

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Mar 12, w/atchs.  
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 31 May 12. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Jun 12. 
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 17 Jun 12. 
 
 
 
 
                                    
                                   Panel Chair 
 
 

 

4