RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-03210
			COUNSEL:   
	  	        HEARING DESIRED:  YES
		
________________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His administrative discharge be set aside and his DD Form 
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, Block 
24 be changed from a general (under honorable conditions) 
discharge be upgraded to honorable.  

2.  He receives all back pay, entitlements and medical benefits.  

3.  His DD Form 214, Block 25, Separation Authority, be changed 
to “AR 635-200, paragraph 4-2” [sic]. 

4.  His separation code on his DD Form 214, Block 26, of “JKA” 
which denotes “Pattern of Misconduct” be changed to “MBK” which 
denotes “Expiration of Term of Service.” 

5.  His Reentry (RE) code “2B” on his DD Form 214, Block 7, 
which denotes “Discharged under general or other than honorable 
conditions” be changed to RE Code “1” to denote “reenlistment 
eligible.”  

6. His narrative reason for separation on his DD Form 214, Block 
28, “Misconduct-Pattern Discreditable Involvement with Military 
or Civil Authorities” be changed to “Released from Active Duty 
upon Termination of Enlistment.”

_______________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In Nov 1990, he was erroneously separated In Accordance With 
(IAW) AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for 
misconduct which resulted in a gross injustice.  The discharge, 
to include the characterization of service was not consistent 
with the events that occurred from 3 Sep to 23 Nov          
1990.  

In Oct 1990, he was ordered to Correctional Custody (CC) for 
rehabilitation after being late to work.  While in CC, he 
experienced severe anxiety and on 12 Oct 1990, presented to the 
inpatient mental health service.  He was evaluated over a two 
week period and was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with 
mixed emotional features and a personality disorder with 
passive-aggressive and narcissistic features.  The medical 
provider failed to explore the diagnosis but instead recommended 
he be discharged based on the “longstanding” history of 
administrative measures taken against him since there was no 
evidence of a psychiatric or emotional problem that might 
warrant a medical separation.  

On 3 Sep 1990, two months prior to being separated he 
reenlisted.  This was 53 days prior to the medical care 
provider’s recommendation for administrative separation.  
Clearly it is impossible to have a longstanding history of 
administrative measures against him in such a short time as 
misconduct from a previous enlistment cannot be used as a reason 
for separation.  

In Jan 1992, he began work as a defense contractor, building and 
testing military satellites.  He was granted a Secret clearance 
from the Department of Defense (DOD) and worked on Air Force 
satellites.  He is employed by National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA) as a systems engineer and flight 
operations test engineer.  He has received numerous awards from 
NASA over the last 21 years.  He graduated from the Community 
College of the Air Force (CCAF) and has maintained a long, 
steady employment history.  

He is a committed husband and has been married for over        
15 years.  He is a faithful parishioner at his church and 
donates time and money to multiple veterans and civilian 
charities. 

In support of his requests, he provides a brief prepared by his 
civilian counsel, a copy of his DD Form 214, National Archives 
(NA) Form 13038, Certification of Military Service; Final Legal 
Review of Discharge Action letter; Narrative Summary (NARSUM) 
Clinical Review and other various documents associated with his 
requests.

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

________________________________________________________________ 

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 5 Feb 1987, the applicant entered active duty.

According to the NARSUM dated 26 Oct 1990, the applicant 
continued to insist the circumstances of his being placed in CC 
were beyond his control and he had no responsibility in causing 
his own difficulties.  Efforts in group, milieu and individual 
therapy were focused towards directing the applicant to address 
the issue of responsibility for his problems, as well as his 
threats of suicide.  It was apparent during the course of his 
hospitalization that no gains were made in either of the areas.  
At no point during his hospitalization, did the applicant appear 
depressed, nor did he complain of depressed mood.  There was no 
evidence of abnormalities or disturbances of sleep, appetite, 
motivation, energy or anhedonia.  In fact, he appeared to be 
comfortable and was pleasant and cooperative in relating to 
other members of the community.  The applicant’s commander 
related that his apparent manipulation and lack of desire to 
remain in the military were obvious to the members of his 
squadron and chain of command.  The medical care provider 
suggested the applicant be considered for administrative 
separation based on the longstanding history of administrative 
measures taken against him.  His commander was agreeable and 
steps were taken to initiate discharging the applicant.  When 
this option was presented to the applicant, he appeared to be 
quite satisfied and it was not until the last minute before his 
departure from the unit that he began to raise concerns about 
the possible consequences of his separation and future 
employment.  The applicant was recommended for follow-up on an 
outpatient basis to help him deal with chronic characterological 
deficits and difficulties dealing with life stressors but 
refused to follow through with the recommendations.  

On 30 Oct 1990, the applicant’s commander’s informed him that he 
was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force for a 
pattern of misconduct consisting of discreditable involvement 
with military or civil authorities IAW AFR 39-10, with a general 
(under honorable conditions) discharge.  The specific reasons 
for the discharge recommendation were a Letter of Counseling 
(LOC) for failure to go to an appointed base detail, Article   
15 for dereliction of duty, failure to go to appointed place of 
duty for which the previously suspended CC duty was vacated, and 
vacation of suspended reduction to the grade of Airman First 
Class (A1C) for failure to follow orders to complete CC duty.   

On 30 Oct 1990, the applicant acknowledged the commander’s 
notification for recommendation of discharge, his right to 
consult counsel and submit statements in his own behalf.  

The applicant checked “Yes” on Standard Form (SF) 93, Report of 
Medical History, dated 31 Oct 1990, question 16, “Have you ever 
been treated for a mental condition,” and question 19, “Have you 
ever been a patient in any type of hospital,” stating he had 
attempted suicide and was treated for the attempted suicide at 
Travis AFB, CA, from 12 to 24 Oct 1990.

On 2 Nov 1990, the applicant consulted counsel.  He waived his 
right to submit statements in his own behalf but requested 
character statements be considered.      

On 8 Nov 1990, the staff judge advocate determined the discharge 
recommendation was legally sufficient with one correction to the 
commander’s notification letter.  The commander cited a failure 
to go to an appointed base detail on 27 Aug 1990 as a reason for 
the discharge recommendation; however, the misconduct occurred 
on a previous enlistment and could not be used as a reason for 
administrative discharge.  The correction did not prejudice the 
applicant’s rights and did not warrant re-accomplishment of the 
notification letter. 

On 21 Nov 1990, the discharge authority approved the discharge 
recommendation. 

On 23 Nov 1990, the applicant was discharged with service 
characterized as a general (under honorable conditions) with a 
narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct – Pattern 
Discreditable Involvement with Military or Civil Authority.”

He served 3 years, 9 months and 18 days on active duty.  
 
On 6 Mar 2014, the AFBCMR staff offered the applicant an 
opportunity to provide information pertaining to his activities 
since leaving the service.  As of this date, this office has not 
received a response (Exhibit C).  

________________________________________________________________ 

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, 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, unduly harsh, or 
disproportionate to the offenses committed and it appears the 
reentry code assigned, the narrative reason for separation and 
corresponding separation code were consistent with the 
discharge.  In view of these findings, we also find no basis to 
recommend that he receive any back pay.  In the interest of 
justice, we considered upgrading the characterization of the 
applicant’s discharge based on clemency; however, after 
considering his overall record of service, the offenses which 
led to his administrative separation and the post-service 
information in the application, we are not persuaded that an 
upgrade on this basis is warranted.  Therefore, in view of the 
above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 
basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved.  
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered.  
________________________________________________________________ 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that 
that the application will only be reconsidered upon the 
submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered 
with this application.  

________________________________________________________________ 

By majority vote, the Board recommended denial of the 
application.  Member  voted to correct the applicant’s narrative 
reason for separation but did  not wish to submit a minority 
report.  The following members of the Board considered Docket 
Number BC-2013-03210 in Executive Session on 6 and 15 May 2014, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

     , Panel Chair
     , Member
     , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Jun 2013, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Mar 2014, w/atch.        
      



 								 
      Panel Chair