RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
	

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-05675

	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation of “Apathy”, as indicated on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty, be omitted.  

His DD Form 214 be corrected to reflect the rank of airman first class (A1C) rather than airman basic (AB).  


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He recently reviewed his military records and discovered why he was ineligible for services through Veterans Affairs.  According to his records he was discharged based on receipt of a special court-martial and non-judicial punishment.  However, he was not asked to leave the Air Force, he decided to leave after sustaining a head injury and being told that he would receive better care at home.  He was informed that he was not as focused and the Air Force could not afford to have him in this condition.  His troubles began when he was accused of removing a hood ornament from a vehicle, resulting in a special court-martial.  However, there were no fines or punishment ever assessed against him, which did not sit well with those that brought the charges against him.  He made several attempts to relocate from his base, but was denied and remained under constant negative verbal and physical attack.  During one physical attack he was hospitalized after sustaining a head injury.  Those witnessing the assault provided statements recounting racial slurs and the physical attack of other airmen; however, it appears his records have been altered by the omission of facts, added signatures, and the previous indicated statements are missing.  Furthermore, unbeknownst to him, during his hospitalization non-judicial punishment was imposed against him and he was reduced in rank by two stripes.  It was not until he reviewed his records that he learned of the documentation used for an administrative discharge and the reason was unjustly indicated as “apathy”.  He actually suffered from a head injury which caused him to perform at a slower pace than usual.  He separated and went home very confused and disoriented, conditions for which he still suffer from today.  Nevertheless, it was his understanding that he would receive an honorable discharge with all the rights and benefits.  He would like his records corrected to receive proper compensation.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 Jul 81.

On 11 May 82, the applicant was tried by special court-martial (SPCM) for violating Article 109 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); specifically for willfully and wrongfully damaging five vehicles by breaking off the hood ornaments.  He was found guilty, in accordance with his plea.  He was sentenced to perform hard labor without confinement for three months and forfeiture of $412.00 pay per month for three months detained for 12 months.  

On 28 May 82, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for his failure to see what was needed to get the lunch meal ready, after being instructed not to sleep on duty.  Specifically, he developed a poor attitude towards his supervisor and co-workers.  

On 7 Jun 82, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to place him on a control roster for a period of four months.  Specifically, due to his conduct, bearing and duty performance being considered below the standards expected of an individual of his grade and experience.  

On 15 Jun 82, an AF Form 1058, Unfavorable Information file (UIF) Action Under AFR 35-32, was established and the applicant was placed on the control roster.  

On 15 Jun 82, the applicant failed to go to his appointed place of duty, for which he received a LOR and UIF entry.  

On 18 Jun 82, the applicant received Non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the UCMJ for being disorderly, in violation of Article 134, of the UCMJ and he was reduced to the grade AB (E-1).  

On 12 Jul 82, the applicant’s commander notified him the he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for apathy and defective attitude.  The reasons for the action included the applicant’s letters of reprimand, placement on the control roster, Article 15, and Special court-martial conviction.  

On 29 Jul 82, an evaluation officer reviewed the applicant’s case and recommended he be discharged from the Air Force and furnished a general discharge for a progressive downward trend in his attitude and duty performance.  In addition, the applicant expressed the inability and non-desire to be successful in a rehabilitation program. 

On 4 Aug 82, the discharge authority directed the applicant be furnished a general discharge, without probation and rehabilitation.  

On 9 Aug 82, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions, with a narrative reason for separation of “Unsuitability – Apathy & Defective Attitude,” and an RE code of 2C.  He was credited with 1 year and 16 days of total active service.  

On 9 Apr 85, the applicant initiated a DD Form 293, Application For The Review of Discharge or Dismissal Form The Armed Forces of the United States, requesting his discharge be changed to honorable.  Specifically, he stated that it was not apathy that he showed when he requested to leave the Air Force, it was fear.  

On 24 Dec 85, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge and reenlistment code, and after considering all the facts of record in the applicant’s case, concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process.  

On 7 Feb 86, the applicant was notified that the AFDRB carefully reviewed and considered all the facts of record in his case.  After thorough deliberation, the Board concluded a change in the type or nature of his discharge was not warranted and denied his request.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibit C, D, and E.  


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no facts warranting a change to his character of service, separation code or narrative reason for separation.  Based on the documentation on file in the applicant’s master personnel records, the discharge to include his characterization of service, SPD code and narrative reason for separation were consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge manual and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial.  There is no error or injustice with respect to the applicant’s court-martial or non-judicial punishment processes.  Additionally, his application has not been submitted in a timely manner.  In this case, the applicant was provided due process afforded him by Article 15, UCMJ.  The commander exercised his discretion in finding that the applicant committed the offense and made the decision to reduce the applicant in rank.  

A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial.  A review of his records reveals that he was never promoted above the rank of airman (Amn).  The applicant entered active duty as an AB, effective 24 Jul 81.  He was promoted to Amn, effective 24 Jan 82.  While serving in the rank of Amn, the applicant received NJP on 14 Jun 82 and was reduced to the rank of AB, effective 18 Jun 82.  During the timeframe the applicant served on active duty, airmen were eligible for promotion to A1C at 6 months time-in-grade (TIG) as an Amn, provided they had the recommendation of their commander.  Based on the applicant’s date of rank (DOR) to Amn, he would have been TIG eligible for promotion to A1C effective 24 Jun 82.  The fact that he received NJP reducing him to the rank of AB, he was rendered ineligible for promotion to A1C.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit E.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He was not allowed access to his records due to a red flag that was not lifted until 2012.  It was then he noticed his records did not contain the racist, verbal and physical violence he suffered or his hospitalization.  In addition, there was an unwillingness to allow eyewitness statements in the medical records to show the actual account of events.  His treatment was unethical then and remains to be unethical now, if the injustice continues.  

The applicant, through his case manager, provided a letter of verification as being a resident of a Homeless Veteran Emergency Housing Facility.  In addition, submission of medical progress notes, doctor visit summaries, a disability form, and various statements in support of his claims before the Department of Veterans Affairs, were included for assessment to substantiate his request.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit G.  


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.  The applicant’s complete submission, including his response to the Air Force evaluations, was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions duly noted; however, in our view, the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) have conducted a thorough review of the evidence of record and we are in agreement with their opinions and recommendations.  Based on the presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs, we must assume the applicant’s discharge and service characterization were proper and in compliance with the directive under which it was effected.  Other than his own uncorroborated assertions, the applicant has presented no evidence to indicate otherwise.  Also, while we are sensitive to the applicant’s current status, it does not justify granting his requested relief.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this 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-2013-05675 in Executive Session on 16 Oct 14 and 13 Apr 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member




The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-05675 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Nov 13 and 15 Jan 14,               
                 w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 28 Jan 14.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 4 Apr 14.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 21 Apr 14.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Sep 14.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.