AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 

DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-01900 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be changed to 
a medical discharge. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
He  should  receive  a  medical  discharge  due  to  his  service 
connected injuries (hearing loss, ringing in ears, fracture right 
index finger, and fractured fifth metacarpal left foot). 
 
In  support  of  the  applicant’s  appeal,  he  provides  a  personal 
statement and a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release 
or Discharge from Active Duty. 
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  on  21  November 
1984.  He served as a Jet Engine Mechanic. 
 
On 18 September 1986, the applicant was notified by his commander 
of  his  intent  to  recommend  that  he  be  discharged  from  the  Air 
Force  under  the  provisions  of  AFR  39-10,  paragraph  5-49c.    The 
specific reason was that on 22 July 1986, the applicant submitted 
a commander-directed urinalysis specimen that tested positive for 
marijuana for which he received a letter of reprimand.  Further 
derogatory actions found in the record include an Article 15 for 
operating  a  motor  vehicle  while  drunk,  being  involved  in  a  hit 
and  run  accident  for  which  he  was  placed  on  International  hold 
and  faced  civil  court  charges,  being  overdrawn  in  his  savings 
account,  being  counseled  for  an  alleged  sexual  assault,  and 
counseled for failing to meet appointments. 
 
He  was  advised  of  his  rights  in  this  matter  and  acknowledged 
receipt of the notification on that same date.  After consulting 
with  counsel  the  applicant  submitted  a  statement  on  his  own 

 

 
 
behalf.    In  a  legal  review  of  the  case  file,  the  staff  judge 
advocate  found  the  case  legally  sufficient  and  recommended 
discharge.  On 5 December 1986, the discharge authority concurred 
with  the  recommendations  and  directed  discharge  with  a  general 
discharge,  without  probation  and  rehabilitation.    The  applicant 
was discharged on 14 July 1987.  He served 2 years, 7 months and 
24 days on active duty and credited with 2 years, 2 months and 
18 days of foreign service. 
 
A  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)  Rating  Decision  dated 
22 April  2011  reflects  the  applicant  was  awarded  a  40  percent 
combined  compensable  disability  rating  for  Disequilibrium, 
Tinnitus,  Residuals  -  Fracture  Right  Index  Finger,  Residuals 
Fracture  fifth  Metacarpal  –  Left  Foot,  and  Bilateral  Hearing 
Loss, effective 3 December 2009. (Exhibit B). 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSOR  recommends  denial.    DPSOR  states  based  on  the 
applicant’s overall performance, the discharge authority approved 
a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  According to 
AFI 36-3208, paragraph 1.18.2, a general discharge is appropriate 
when  “significant  negative  aspects  of  the  airman’s  conduct  or 
performance  of  duty  outweighs  positive  aspects  of  the  airman’s 
military  record.”    The  applicant’s  misconduct  in  this  case 
clearly  outweighs  the  positive  aspects  of  his  service.    Before 
recommending discharge the applicant’s unit made several attempts 
to rehabilitate him.  The applicant has stated his wife gave him 
some  medication  that  may  have  made  him  test  positive.    The 
applicant’s use of drugs was unacceptable for anyone in the Air 
Force.    The  applicant  demonstrated  a  lack  of  respect  for 
authority  and  a  total  disregard  for  policies  and  procedures 
constantly  throughout  his  career.    The  record  further  shows 
applicant  was  counseled  on  numerous  occasions  for  his  behavior 
and  was  afforded  an  opportunity  to  overcome  his  deficiencies.  
The  applicant’s  incidents  of  misconduct  disrupted  good  order, 
discipline,  and  morale  within  the  military  community;  hence, 
discharge was appropriate. 
 
Based  on  the  documentation  on  file  in  the  master  personnel 
records,  the  discharge  to  include  his  narrative  reason  for 
separation  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 
provide  any  evidence  of  an  error  or  injustice  that  occurred  in 
the discharge processing. 
 
The DPSOR’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 

 

 
 
 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
On 3 October 2012, a copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  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.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  an  error  or  injustice.    The 
applicant’s  contentions  are  duly  noted;  however,  we  agree  with 
the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility  and  adopt  its  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our 
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error 
or  injustice.    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  an  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-2012-01900  in  Executive  Session  on  23  January  2013, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 
The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-01900 was considered: 
 
   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 May 2012, w/atchs. 
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 20 September 2012. 
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 October 2012.