RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05845
		COUNSEL: NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be 
upgraded to honorable or general (under honorable conditions) 
discharge. 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was unjust because he was involved in two 
accidents (both included Traumatic Brain Injuries/TBI) while on 
active duty:  

First, he was struck by a sheet of plywood during a “dust 
devil.”  During this accident, he sustained severe injuries to 
his face, which are still visible.  The scar tissue inside his 
mouth caused his gums to erode and his teeth to fall out.  The 
back of his head/neck hit the front of a goose neck flatbed 
trailer.  He questions how long he was unconscious because he 
was not coherent until he arrived at the hospital.

Second, he was involved in a motorcycle accident caused by high 
winds.  He was unconscious for several hours and was flown to 
Wilford Hall Medical Center to recover.  He sustained the same 
injuries as the first accident.  In addition, he had pins in his 
right ulna and fifth metacarpal that never healed correctly and 
required a Proximal Row Carpectomy in 2010.  

After the second accident, he was offered a medical discharge 
due to a back condition.  He refused; focused his attention on 
his recovery and returning duty.  

He is scheduled to have surgery on both ankles to pin and fuse 
the bones.  The recovery period is projected to take two years 
and he needs to have both hips resurfaced.  

His severe medical problems, including the TBI he sustained 
caused his performance to decline and impaired his judgment.

He needs his discharge upgraded to get a proper diagnosis of his 
medical problems.  

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, copies of his DD Form 293, Application for the Review 
of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States; VA 
Forms 21-4138, Statement in Support of Claim; AF Forms 909, 
Airman Performance Report (Airman Basic through Senior Airman); 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, and various other documentation associated with his 
request.  

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 7 May 81, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.

On 29 Dec 81, the applicant failed to attend a Reading Test.  
For this misconduct, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).  

On 11 Mar 82, an In the Line of Duty (ILOD) determination was 
initiated because he was injured when hit by a piece of plywood 
that blew in his face.  The proximate cause of the applicant’s 
injury was a weather related mishap.  On 8 Apr 82, the 
applicant’s injury was determined to be ILOD.

On 3 May 82, an ILOD determination was initiated because he was 
injured while riding a motorcycle off base.  The proximate cause 
of the applicant’s injury was due to his inability to properly 
operate his motorcycle under adverse conditions.   On 16 Jun 82, 
the applicant’s injury was determined to be ILOD.  

On or about 20 Apr 83, the applicant wrongfully used 
Tetrahydrocannabinol, a Schedule I controlled substance.  For 
this misconduct, he received an Article 15, Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ), with punishment consisting of reduction 
to the grade of airman, forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for 
two months and ordered into correctional custody for a period of 
30 days.  

On 27 May 83, the portion of punishment which extended to 
reduction in grade to airman was suspended until 15 Nov 83, at 
which time it was to be remitted without further action unless 
it was sooner vacated.  On 1 Jul 83, the applicant’s suspended 
reduction to the grade of airman was vacated and duly executed.

On or about 26 Aug 83, the applicant without authority, failed 
to go to his appointed place of duty.  For this misconduct, he 
received an Article 15, UCMJ, with punishment consisting of 
reduction to the grade of airman basic and forfeiture of 
$50.00 pay.  

On 28 Oct 83, the applicant was tried by a Special Court-Martial 
and pled not guilty to Charge I, for operating a passenger car, 
while drunk in violation of Article 111 and Charge II, wrongful 
possession of some amount of marijuana, a Scheduled I controlled 
substance, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ.  He was found 
guilty of Charge I and not guilty of Charge II.  For this 
misconduct, he was sentenced to a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD), 
confinement at hard labor for two months and forfeiture of 
$382.00 pay per month for two months.  

On 14 Nov 83, the convening authority approved the findings, 
except the BCD was changed to a lesser punishment of confinement 
at hard labor for two months, making a total of confinement at 
hard labor for four months.  The sentence as changed was 
approved and executed.

On 23 Nov 83, the applicant was notified of his commander’s 
intent to recommend he be discharged from the Air Force under 
the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of 
Airmen.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his 
right to a hearing before an administrative discharge board and 
to submit a statement in his own behalf

On 9 Dec 83, the Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case and 
found it legally sufficient to support discharge and recommended 
to the 554th Combat Support Group commander (554 CSG/CC) that 
the unconditional waiver be accepted and the applicant be 
discharged with an UOTHC discharge, without the offer of 
probation and rehabilitation.  The 554 CSG/CC reviewed the case 
file and recommended the Tactical Fighter Weapons Center 
commander (TFWC/CC) accept the applicant’s unconditional waiver 
and order he be discharged with an UOTHC discharge.  

On 12 Dec 83, the TFWC/SJA reviewed the case file and found it 
legally sufficient to support discharge and recommended the 
TFWC/CC accept the applicant’s unconditional waiver and approve 
his UOTHC discharge without the offer of probation and 
rehabilitation.  

On 13 Dec 83, the TFWC/CC reviewed the case and approved the 
recommendation to discharge the applicant with an UOTHC 
discharge.  On 20 Dec 83, the applicant was discharged with 
service characterized as UOTHC in the grade of airman basic. He 
served 2 years, 5 months and 21 days of total active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  DPSOR states that the 
applicant’s service to the Air Force reflects significant 
negative aspects which outweigh his positive contributions.  In 
accordance with AFI 36-3208 (formerly AFR 39-10), an UOTHC 
discharge is appropriate when “basing the reason for separation 
on a pattern of behavior or one or more acts that constitute a 
significant departure from the conduct expected of airmen.”  
DPSOR states that before recommending discharge, the commander 
stated that he ensured rehabilitation efforts were made.  
Despite having had every opportunity to correct his substandard 
behavior, the applicant refused to take responsibility for his 
actions.  He demonstrated his unwillingness to adhere to 
military standards and showed little rehabilitative potential 
considering his repeated acts of misconduct.  

DPSOR states that the applicant did not provide any evidence 
than an error or injustice occurred in the processing of his 
discharge warranting a change to his separation code.

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

By letter dated 5 May 13, the applicant states he has two 
reasons for seeking an upgrade to his discharge.  First, he 
wants to be eligible for healthcare.  He is not asking for long 
term healthcare but would like to be given a thorough physical 
and be tested for possible long term effects of the injuries he 
sustained while on active duty.  Specifically, he is concerned 
about the periods of head trauma and the loss of consciousness.  
He is aware that his medical records reflect two separate 
incidents of this. 

Second, the applicant wants the opportunity to qualify for a 
Veterans Administration (VA) certificate of eligibility for a 
home loan.  

The applicant’s complete submission 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 an 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 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.  While the applicant 
contends his discharge was unjust because of two TBI injuries, 
and states that he was offered a medical discharge, he has not 
provided any evidence showing that he had an unfitting medical 
condition that would have required his processing through the 
Military Disability Evaluation System - a prerequisite to a 
medical discharge.  In the interest of justice, we considered 
upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not 
find the evidence presented is sufficient 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 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-05845 in Executive Session on 26 Sep 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				Panel Chair
				Member
				Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

       Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Dec 12, w/atchs.
       Exhibit B.  Applicant's Military Personnel Records.
       Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 27 Mar 13.
       Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Apr 13. 
       Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 May 13.




							
							Panel Chair
4

5