RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03565
		COUNSEL:  NONE
	                          	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded 
to honorable.  

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was diagnosed as manic/depressive by a psychiatrist at 
Keesler Air Force Base (AFB), Mississippi (MS); however, he was 
never treated.  He has had an extremely chaotic life for 37 
years, and was finally diagnosed as Bipolar in 2011.  He is 
currently being treated with medications which help him to lead 
a “normal” lifestyle.  He should have received proper medication 
and counseling when he was diagnosed while on active duty.  

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who 
entered active duty on 10 January 1972.  

The applicant received Article 15 punishment on 13 November 1973 
for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place 
of duty, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military 
Justice (UCMJ).  As a result, he was ordered to forfeit $25 pay 
per month for two months.  He also received three written 
reprimands:  22 April 1974, violation of a lawful regulation by 
having his hair too long and not presenting a tapered 
appearance, in violation of Article 92 UCMJ; 3 June 1974, 
driving 32 miles per hour (mph) in a 25 mph zone on Keesler AFB, 
MS; and 17 October 1974, stealing one blue jacket from the Base 
Exchange, Keesler AFB, MS.  

On 5 July 1974, he entered into the Air Force Drug Abuse 
Rehabilitation Program.  He progressed to Phase V on 30 August 
1973 and graduated from the program on 9 September 1974.  

He was evaluated on 29 August 1974 and again on 25 September 
1974 by the Mental Health Clinic at Keesler Medical Center.  He 
was also evaluated on 6, 9, and 19 September 1974.  The 29 
August 1974 examination results indicate “no clear signs of 
psychosis or neurosis, and social history does not support a 
character and behavior disorder… He is experiencing what is best 
described as a situational adjustment reaction of adult 
life…manifestations of his reaction include frequent feelings of 
depression and irritability, a deteriorated marital and familial 
emotional gratification from Air Force duties…while [applicant] 
is currently responsible for his behavior, he is poorly 
motivated for performing Air Force duties…If this man continues 
to withdraw socially and does not have contact with his wife and 
son, he may be expected to decompensate emotionally…”  The 
evaluations of 6,9, and 19 September 1974 show results 
indicating a “moderate character and behavior disorder” best 
described as a passive-aggressive personality, aggressive type, 
with immature features.  The 25 September 1974 evaluation 
indicates “[applicant] has very poor potential for retention in 
the Air Force, is not amenable to treatment, and states clearly 
that he wants out and is not willing to cooperate in the 
performance of duties…this man should not be granted a security 
clearance…he should be held responsible for his behavior…”

On 30 October 1974, the applicant’s commander notified the 
applicant of his intent to recommend him for discharge for 
unsuitability under the provisions of Air Force Manual 39-12, 
Chapter 2, Section A.  The commander also indicated he was 
recommending the applicant receive an honorable discharge 
certificate.  

The applicant acknowledged his commander’s intent, waived his 
right to a hearing before an administrative discharge board, 
consulted counsel, and submitted a statement in his own behalf.  

The Deputy Staff Judge Advocate found the case to be legally 
sufficient and indicated the discharge authority had the 
prerogative to determine the type of discharge the applicant 
should receive, either honorable or general (under honorable 
conditions).  

On 7 November 1974, the discharge authority approved the 
applicant’s discharge; however, indicated that based on the 
applicant’s overall military record, which included three 
written reprimands and punishment under the UCMJ (Article 15), 
the issuance of an honorable discharge was not warranted.  As a 
result, the discharge authority directed the applicant be 
discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) 
discharge, and that neither the term “unsuitable” nor any other 
data, other than that specified, would be annotated on the 
applicant’s DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty.  

The applicant was discharged from active duty in the grade of 
sergeant (E-4) effective 8 November 1974 with a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge.  He served 2 years, 9 months, 
and 29 days on active duty.  

On 30 January 2013, the applicant was given an opportunity to 
submit comments about his post service activities (Exhibit C).  
In response, the applicant provided a personal statement with an 
Arizona Department of Education certificate, a Fingerprint 
Clearance Card notification letter, a letter of support, and a 
Bachelor of Arts certificate.  

The applicant’s complete rebuttal, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit E.  

________________________________________________________________
_

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.  We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, a majority of the Board finds no evidence of 
an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing.  
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, unduly 
harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed.  In the 
interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based 
on clemency; however, the Board majority does not find the 
evidence presented is sufficient to recommend granting the relief 
sought on that basis.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to 
the contrary, a majority of the Board finds no basis upon which 
to recommend granting the relief sought.

________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or 
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

________________________________________________________________



The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-03565 in Executive Session on 25 April 2013, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	                    , Panel Chair
	                    , Member
	                    , Member

By a majority vote, the members voted to deny the request.  
XXX voted to correct the record and did not desire to 
submit a minority report.  The following documentary evidence 
pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-03565 was considered:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Jul 12.
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 Jan 13, w/atch.
Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, not dated, w/atchs.




								                      
					Panel Chair