RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05578
	 		COUNSEL:  NONE
			HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

2.  His narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct (Other)” 
be changed to “Medical.”

________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was inequitable because it was based on isolated 
events in 49 months of service and his medical records were not 
taken into consideration.

He was found asleep on post for no more than a few minutes.  His 
supervisors were aware that he was not a reliable option for 
posting based on his medical condition.

His supervisors were notified that his Personnel Reliability 
Program (PRP) status was suspended.  His medical records stated 
that he was unfit for duty and was not able to carry a weapon, 
nor take post per medical orders.  

He was placed on “Pride Flight” which is a term that his unit 
used for individuals unable to possess firearms or stand post 
due to various reasons.

He was caught sleeping on post due to his insomnia and was tried 
by summary court-martial.  The commander at his summary court-
martial reported that his character of service and duty 
performance prior to the offenses was below average.  He finds 
this statement absurd considering the commander had only been in 
his position a few weeks prior to the court-martial hearing.

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, a letter from his Area Defense Counsel (ADC), a 
memorandum from the Airman and Family Readiness Center, 
character letters, and military personal records.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 14 Jul 09, the applicant entered active duty in the Regular 
Air Force.

On 8 Aug 11, the applicant was notified by his squadron 
commander that he was recommending his discharge from the Air 
Force for a pattern of misconduct.  The reasons for the proposed 
action were:  (1) On or about 24 Apr 11, while posted as a 
sentinel, the applicant was found sleeping on post.  For this 
misconduct, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) consisting 
of a reduction to the grade of airman, a suspended forfeiture of 
$822.00 pay through 5 Nov 11, 20 days extra duty, and a 
reprimand; (2) On or about 10 Jun 11, the applicant failed to 
obey a lawful order by sitting inside his vehicle when he was 
ordered to stand outside of his vehicle unless there was 
inclement weather.  For this misconduct, he received a vacation 
of the suspended NJP resulting in a forfeiture of $822.00 pay; 
and (3) On or about 10 Jun 11, while posted as a sentinel, he 
was found sleeping on his post.  For this misconduct, he 
received a vacation of the suspended NJP and was found guilty by 
a summary court-martial.  As a result, he was sentenced to a 
reduction to the grade of airman basic, three days confinement, 
hard labor without confinement for seven days, forfeiture of 
$452.00 pay per month for one month, and a reprimand.

On 8 Aug 11, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
notification of discharge and after consulting with legal 
counsel, waived his right to submit a statement in his own 
behalf.  

The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally 
sufficient to support separation.  The discharge authority 
approved the separation and directed he receive a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge without probation and 
rehabilitation.

On 22 Aug 11, the applicant was discharged under the provisions 
of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for 
Misconduct, with service characterized as general (under 
honorable conditions).  He served on active duty for a period of 
two years, one month, and nine days.

________________________________________________________________


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  DPSOR states that based on the 
documentation on file in the master personnel records, the 
discharge 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 
submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that 
occurred in the discharge processing.

DPSOR states that there is insufficient evidence contained 
within the applicant’s military record to confirm the 
circumstances and facts surrounding the applicant’s discharge.  
Absent such documentation, there is a presumption of regularity 
in which the applicant was afforded due process.

AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.50.2, states that airmen are subject to 
separation for misconduct that disrupts order, discipline, or 
morale within the military community.  This category of 
misconduct usually involves causing dissent, disruption, and 
degradation of mission effectiveness.  The applicant received 
numerous verbal counseling on various occasions.  Despite the 
unit’s best efforts, the applicant did not respond to the 
counseling he received.  The continued nature of these 
documented instances of misconduct, despite frequent 
rehabilitative efforts, satisfied the requirements of the 
instruction and justified discharge.  The applicant’s repeated 
incidents of misconduct reflected an unwillingness to conform to 
Air Force standards, thus, a basis existed under paragraph 
5.50.2., to support the applicant’s separation from the Air 
Force.

According to AFI 36-2308, paragraph 1.18.2, if an airman’s 
service has been honest and faithful, a general (under honorable 
conditions) service characterization is warranted when 
significant negative aspects of the airman’s conduct or 
performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the 
airman’s military record.  The negative aspects of the 
applicant’s short Air Force career outweighed the positive.  
Therefore, a general service characterization is most 
appropriate in this case.

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends granting the applicant 
relief by changing the narrative reason for separation to 
“Secretarial Authority,” with an honorable character of service.

The Medical Consultant states that the case confronting him and 
the AFBCMR is to determine if there has been an error or an 
injustice in the applicant’s discharge.  If this case was 
presented before a Discharge Review Board (DRB), the task would 
be to determine if there was an inequity or impropriety in the 
applicant’s discharge.  With respect to the applicant’s 
discharge characterization, it should be known that Security 
Forces personnel are held to a higher standard of conduct and 
behavior and that sleeping on duty is [a non-starter] considered 
a particularly significant departure from standards of military 
conduct; for those charged with protecting military personnel 
and material assets, as in standing post.  On the other hand, 
the applicant’s medical documentation has identified a likely 
source of his tardiness [not fully within his span of control 
without medication], emanating from his insomnia and non-
restorative sleep.  As a result, he entered upon a cycle of 
increased stress, increased insomnia, and recurrent tardiness.  
Although “getting into trouble” was a contributory cause of the 
applicant’s increased stress, the record indicates that there 
were family and occupational stressors experienced by him as 
well; noting his reported application for voluntary separation 
and inability to cross-train; perhaps a decision too late in the 
course of events to secure.  As implicit in the advisory from 
DPSOR and following a likely contention [called issue] before a 
DRB, the usual argument of harshness [too harsh], inequity, or 
impropriety would likely not outweigh the applicant’s 
occupational expectations, which demands fully engaged personnel 
at all times of duty; notwithstanding his high marks in bearing 
and performance prior to his series of troubles, which the 
applicant feels should have been taken into consideration.  
Therefore, viewing this case through the lens of the BCMR, there 
is some suggestion of error [by legal choice of the commander] 
and an injustice [resulting lifelong General discharge] by 
selecting Misconduct, as opposed to Adjustment Disorder [a 
recurring diagnostic conclusion], as a basis for discharge; 
perhaps with an awareness that this would bring an Honorable 
discharge [implicitly bad message to Security Forces for 
sleeping on duty].  The Medical Consultant, alone, is at a 
disadvantage absent the benefit of cross-talk during a DRB 
personal appearance or administrative hearing.  Nevertheless, 
rather than putting the applicant through the DRB process, 
albeit the alternative administrative remedy which may not have 
been exhausted, the Medical Consultant finds sufficient evidence 
to recommend changing the reason for discharge to “Secretarial 
Authority” with an upgrade of discharge characterization to 
“Honorable.”

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

________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 24 May 13, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit 
E).  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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  After 
carefully reviewing the evidence of record and the assessments 
provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility and 
the BCMR Medical Consultant, we believe partial relief is 
warranted.  The applicant contends that his discharge was 
inequitable because it was based on isolated events in 49 months 
of service and that his medical records were not taken into 
consideration.  The applicant states that the issues while in 
the military were directly related to depression, chronic 
insomnia, and medications he was prescribed, not misbehavior.  
We note the Medical Consultant has thoroughly reviewed this case 
and recognizes that Security Forces personnel are held to a 
higher standard of conduct and behavior and that sleeping on 
duty is considered a significant departure from standards of 
military conduct.  The Medical Consultant opines that the 
applicant’s incidents of sleeping on post could be considered a 
pattern of continued disregard for military standards and good 
order and discipline.  However, he believes that it is 
reasonable that the applicant’s underlying medical conditions 
could have attributed to his incidents of sleeping on post.  
While the applicant’s discharge may have been procedurally 
correct and within the discretion of the discharge authority, we 
find the Medical Consultant’s rationale compelling and adopt it 
as the basis for our recommendation to change his narrative 
reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority” and upgrade his 
discharge to honorable.  Therefore, in view of the above, we 
recommend his records be corrected to the extent indicated 
below.

________________________________________________________________


THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 22 Aug 
11, he was honorably discharged, with a narrative reason for 
separation of “Secretarial Authority,” rather than “Misconduct 
(Other),” and was furnished an Honorable Discharge certificate.

________________________________________________________________


The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-05578 in Executive Session on 5 Sep 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:


	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number     
BC-2012-05578 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Nov 12, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 6 Feb 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, 10 Apr 13.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 24 May 13.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair