RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-05889
		
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded, his highest rank 
restored, and all ribbons and medals restored.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The behavior that resulted in his court martial was influenced by 
undiagnosed and untreated mental illness.  The Department of 
Veterans Affairs (DVA) has recently determined his mental illness 
was directly related to his military service and has recently 
awarded him a 100% disability rating.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 
20 Jun 80.

On 5 Nov 80, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under 
Article 15 for possession of marijuana, for which he received 
forfeiture of pay for two months.

On 22 Oct 85, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under 
Article 15 for failure to go at the time prescribed to his 
appointed place of duty, for which he received a suspended 
reduction in rank and forfeiture of pay for two months.

On 23 Apr 86, the applicant was sentenced to BCD, confinement, 
forfeiture of pay for six months, and reduction in grade to airman 
basic (E-1), for being found guilty in a special court martial.  
The specifications were multiple incidents of wrongful possession 
of marijuana and one specification to conspire to distribute 
marijuana.  This action action was affirmed through Special Court-
Martial Order No. 2, dated 29 Dec 86.


On 12 Jan 87, the applicant was furnished a BCD for conviction by 
court-martial (other than desertion), in the grade of airman basic 
(E-1), and was credited with 2 years, 8 months, and 16 days of 
active service.

On 25 Feb 02, applicant was informed that the Air Force Discharge 
Review Board (DRB) denied his request to upgrade his discharge.  
The Board concluded the applicant’s punitive discharge by Special 
Court Martial was appropriate under the facts and circumstances of 
the case and there was insufficient basis as an act of clemency 
for change of discharge.

On 20 Jan 15, a request for post-service information was forwarded 
to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As of 
this date no response has been received by this office (Exhibit 
G).

On 10 Mar 15, SecDef Guidance for Correction Boards regarding Post 
Traumatic Stress Disorder was forwarded to the applicant for 
review and response within 30 days.  As of this date no response 
has been received by this office (Exhibit I).

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


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice.  While we note the DVA decision review 
indicates a service connection for bipolar disorder which started 
during childhood, without the full medical record to review, it is 
impossible to determine with any accuracy when the applicant knew 
or should have known about his mental illness.  Considering the 
nature of the misconduct, we are not convinced that even if the 
applicant submitted evidence of his mental illness during the 
court martial, the sentence would have been different.  Similarly, 
we do not believe that this mental illness should now serve as a 
basis for clemency.

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

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an 
error or injustice to restore the applicant’s rank to the highest 
grade, which was sergeant (E-4).  Although the applicant has 
recently been diagnosed with a service-related illness, AFPC/DPSOE 
concurs with AFLOA/JAJM’s recommendation uphold the previous 
decisions and to not grant the applicant’s request based clemency.

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

AFPC/DPSIDR recommends no action be taken regarding the 
applicant’s request restore his ribbons and medals.  There is no 
documentation in the applicant's record to indicate any awards or 
decorations were revoked.  The awards and decoration listed on his 
DD Form 214, dated 12 Jan 87, are accurate and complete.

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

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends consideration of an 
upgrade to the applicant’s discharge to General, but not 
Honorable.  No service medical documentation is supplied to 
demonstrate evaluation or treatment of a mental disorder, and no 
post-service medical documentation of a mental disorder is 
supplied; however, the applicant’s behavior was observed to wax 
and wane, as documented in his performance reports.  This is 
characteristic of a mood disorder, such as bipolar disorder.  It 
is well established in the literature that bipolar disorder may 
present alongside a co-morbid substance abuse problem.  That is 
not to say that bipolar disorder causes substance abuse, as it is 
often difficult to determine if drug [use] is causing the symptoms 
versus the bipolar disorder; as either may display the same signs 
and symptoms.  Nevertheless, previous work with adults has 
suggested that early-onset bipolar disorder is associated with an 
elevated risk for substance use disorder.  In particular, 
substance abuse, especially cocaine abuse or dependence, and 
alcoholism is far more common phenomenon in the population of 
patient with bipolar affective disorder than in the general 
population.  National Institute of Mental Health Epidemiologic 
Catchment Area data indicate that bipolar affective disorder is 
the Axis 1 disorder most likely to be associated with some form of 
substance abuse or dependence.  While an upgrade of the 
applicant’s discharge to Honorable is not recommended, an Under 
Other Than Honorable (UOTHC) discharge could fit the applicant's 
guilty offenses [if limited to marijuana possession with intent to 
distribute].  The Medical Consultant recommends consideration of 
an upgrade of discharge to General [under honorable conditions], 
based upon Clemency so that the applicant can get on with his life 
and treatment by the DVA.

A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at 
Exhibit F.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluation(s) were forwarded to the 
applicant on 23 Jan 15 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit E).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office.

?
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 regarding the 
applicant’s request to upgrade his BCD and restore his highest 
grade served (E-4).  We note that this Board is without authority 
to reverse, set aside, or otherwise expunge a court-martial 
conviction.  Rather, in accordance with Title 10, United States 
Code, Section 1552(f), actions by this Board are limited to 
corrections to the record to reflect actions taken by the 
reviewing officials and action on the sentence of the court-
martial for the purpose of clemency.  We concur with opinions of 
the Air Force Offices of Primary Responsibility (OPR) and find no 
evidence which indicates the applicant’s service characterization, 
which had its basis in his court-martial conviction and was a part 
of the sentence of the military court, was improper or that it 
exceeded the limitations set forth in the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice (UCMJ).  We have considered the applicant’s overall 
quality of service, the court-martial conviction which 
precipitated the discharge, and the seriousness of the offenses to 
which convicted.  Further, we note the comments of the AFBCMR 
Medical Consultant indicating that relief to upgrade the discharge 
(to General, but not Honorable), based on clemency, should be 
considered.  However, in the absence of any evidence related to 
the applicant’s post-service activities that would enable us to 
determine if his accomplishments since his discharge are 
sufficient to overcome the misconduct for which he was discharged, 
we find no basis upon which to favorably consider this 
application.

With regards to the applicant’s request to restore his ribbons and 
medals, we recommend no action be taken as no evidence in the 
applicant's record indicates any awards or decorations were 
revoked.  The awards and decoration listed on his DD Form 214, 
dated 12 Jan 87, are accurate and complete.

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 issues involved.  
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.


?
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-2013-05889 in Executive Session on 22 Apr 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Dec 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 1 Apr 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 7 Apr 14.
	Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 7 Jul 14.
	Exhibit F.  Memorandum, SAF/MRB, dated 7 Jan DD.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jan 15.
	Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Jan 15.
	Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Mar 15, w/atchs.