RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05098
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded
to honorable.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The actions that precipitated his discharge were due to mental
health issues that arose after his deployment to Afghanistan
that were not properly addressed.
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of
documents extracted from his military medical records.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 1 May 07, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the
Regular Air Force.
The applicant received a referral performance report for the
period 31 Jan 09 through 31 Dec 09. The report indicates the
applicant received a Letter of Reprimand and an Unfavorable
Information file for an off-duty alcohol related incident.
On 24 Mar 10, the applicant reported to the Family Practice
Clinic with symptoms consistent with a current major depression
syndrome.
The medical note dated 26 Mar 10 indicates the applicant was
being seen by mental health and Alcohol and Drug Abuse
Prevention & Treatment (ADAPT) program. The applicant stated he
has been sober since August 2009. It was further noted the
applicant expressed his concerns that he wanted his treatment
plan to focus on mental health rather than ADAPT. The medical
note further indicated the applicant revealed he was not being
retained in the Air Force and would be discharged by 30 Jun 10;
he was not happy with the decision, but accepted it.
On 30 Jun 10, the applicant was furnished a general (under
honorable conditions) discharge for misconduct (minor
disciplinary infractions). He was credited with three years and
two months of total active service.
The applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board
(AFDRB) to have his general discharge, narrative reason for
separation, and reentry code upgraded. On 1 Jun 12, the AFDRB
considered and denied the applicants request.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFP/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is insufficient
evidence in the applicants military record pertaining to his
discharge. However, absent the documentation, there is a
presumption of regularity in the conduct of government affairs,
which dictates that absent evidence to the contrary, it is
presumed the applicant was afforded due process and the
discharge was consistent with procedural and substantive
requirements of the discharge instruction.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR 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 25 Jan 13, 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 timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. We took
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the
merits of this case; however, we find no evidence of an error or
injustice that occurred in the discharge process. We note the
applicant's discharge records are not available for our review.
Therefore, the facts surrounding his separation and character of
service could not be verified. However, based on the
presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental
affairs, absent evidence to the contrary, we must assume the
applicant's discharge, to include his service characterization
and narrative reason for separation, were proper and in
compliance with the directive under which it was effected.
Other than his own assertions, the applicant has presented no
evidence to indicate otherwise. Therefore, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend
favorable consideration of the 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-2012-05098 in Executive Session on 30 Jul 13, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Oct 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 18 Jan 13.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jan 13.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04545
On 3 Aug 09, the applicant submitted an appeal to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB). DPSOR states that based on the documentation on file in the applicants master personnel records, the discharge to include the narrative reason for separation and separation code was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. ________________________________________________________________ THE...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01495
On 22 May 85, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) reviewed the applicants request to upgrade his discharge, but denied the request because the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04547
The AFDRB concluded the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _____________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He is currently being seen by yet another psychologist whose opinion is that he was never...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01691
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01691 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His disability discharge, with severance pay (DWSP), be changed to a retirement. He had completed over 12 years of service at the time of his discharge. In addressing the applicants request for a length of service retirement, in lieu of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05878
On 27 Apr 11, the applicants commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for Unsatisfactory Duty Performance Failure to Meet Minimum Fitness Standards. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. Exhibit E. Memorandum, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 25 Jun 14.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01536
However, even when considering possible overlapping symptoms of PTSD, Panic Disorder, and Anxiety Disorder, military officials determined that it was his co-morbid Personality Disorder that presented the greatest obstacle to his treatment and retention and, thus, recommended the administrative discharge. The proposed treatment for his anxiety disorder in 1985 was appropriate regardless of the differential diagnosis (e.g., PTSD vs. Panic Disorder). The applicant is advised that a diagnosis...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 02567
Since that time, she was seen at the clinic for alcohol abuse and a suicide attempt on 4 Oct 2002. However, the mental health professional who evaluated her determined that her primary diagnosis was Borderline Personality Disorder and that she had an S4T profile, secondary to her alcohol abuse and involvement in the ADAPT program. She suffers from depression, suicidal ideations, anger issues, and has a personality disorder, which began during her time in the military and has continued...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02567
Since that time, she was seen at the clinic for alcohol abuse and a suicide attempt on 4 Oct 2002. However, the mental health professional who evaluated her determined that her primary diagnosis was Borderline Personality Disorder and that she had an S4T profile, secondary to her alcohol abuse and involvement in the ADAPT program. She suffers from depression, suicidal ideations, anger issues, and has a personality disorder, which began during her time in the military and has continued...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03399
On 27 August 2007, the applicant was notified of her commanders intent to recommend she be discharged from the Air Force for conditions that interfered with military service: Mental Disorders Adjustment Disorder. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application is contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C and Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00643
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force which is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. On 16 Feb 12, the applicant initiated a request for retirement. The demotion action following his second alcohol-related offense was warranted and he...