RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00503

			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded 
to Honorable.



APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His characterization of discharge should have been a medical 
discharge based on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). 

He deployed to Baghdad in 2006.  During this deployment he 
witnessed a fellow Airman and close personal friend die in the 
line of duty.  Upon return unbeknownst to the applicant, he 
began to suffer from PTSD.  

He deployed again to the Middle East in Jan 09 to Camp Bucca, 
Iraq and when he returned his symptoms of PTSD intensified.  

When the applicant was released from active duty he was severely 
suffering from PTSD.  He has been in treatment and feels he is 
now ready to address his characterization of discharge, whereas 
before his medical condition prevented him from dealing with 
this appropriately.

In support of his request, the applicant has provided eleven 
character reference letters, five letters of appreciation, and 
copies of his Air Force Medals. 

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



STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 18 Jan 
05.  

On 24 Feb 10, the applicant received an Article 15, Nonjudicial 
Punishment, for violations of Article 128, unlawfully grabbed 
and pushed a fellow airman and Article 134, wrongfully 
communicated at threat.  He was reduced in grade to airman and 
reprimanded. 

On 21 May 08, the applicant received an Article 15, Nonjudicial 
Punishment, for violating Article 92, failed to refrain from 
using his government travel card for other than official travel 
related expenses.  He was reduced in grade to airman first 
class.

On 14 Jul 08, the applicant received an Article 15, Nonjudicial 
Punishment, for violations of Article 92, derelict in the 
performance of duties in that he willfully failed to refrain 
from transporting or carrying a privately owned weapon or 
firearm on base and Article 134, wrongfully and recklessly 
engaged in conduct:  waiving a loaded weapon in the air, conduct 
likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm to a fellow 
airmen.  He was reduced in grade to airman, restricted to the 
limits of base for 14 days and given 14 days of extra duty.

On 17 Nov 09, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand.  
Investigation had disclosed that on or about 6 Nov 09, the 
applicant was involved in an altercation whereas threats and 
physical contact by the applicant caused undue harm.

On 19 Apr 10, the applicant’s commander notified him of his 
intent to recommend discharge for Misconduct in accordance with 
AFPD 36-32, Military Retirement and Separations and AFI 36-3208, 
Administrative Separation of Airman, Chapter 5, paragraph 5.49.  
The commander recommended characterizing the discharge as 
General (Under Honorable Conditions).

On 22 Apr 10, the applicant acknowledge his commander’s intent 
of discharge.  He consulted counsel and submitted a statement 
for his consideration.

On 3 May 10, the Base Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the 
discharge package and found it legally sufficient.

On 4 May 10, the discharge authority directed a General (Under 
Honorable Conditions) discharge without the opportunity for 
probation and rehabilitation.

On 7 May 10, the applicant was furnished a General (Under 
Honorable Conditions) discharge, and was credited with 5 years, 
3 months, and 20 days of active service.

A Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) search of the 
applicant’s fingerprints revealed a driving under the influence 
of alcohol charge that was subsequently dismissed on 24 Jan 12. 



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice.  According to the applicant’s records he 
had been counseled and given several opportunities to overcome 
his deficiencies but with no success.  His commander concluded 
that his blatant disregard for military standards had proven to 
be a burden to the unit and discharge was warranted.  
 
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

BCMR Medical Consultant recommends consideration of an upgrade 
of discharge characterization to Honorable and change in reason 
for separation to “Secretarial Authority.” He found no 
definitive causal or mitigating relationship between the 
applicant’s acts, misconduct and his co-morbid diagnoses of 
Adjustment Disorder, Occupational Problems and PTSD; as these 
appear to have resurfaced after the applicant’s troubles with 
his girlfriend and in his responses after receiving disciplinary 
actions; and recollection of is childhood and wartime exposure.  

Noting a memo where the provider acknowledged that it would take 
longer than 6 months to treat the applicant and to determine if 
a Medical Evaluation Board would be required, the Consultant 
opines this does suggest existence of an impropriety in the 
management of the applicant’s case; where clearly his misconduct 
took precedence in the minds of medical and command leadership. 
Had the applicant been retained to pursue further medical 
assessment, he may have, at least, been eligible for a “dual-
action” review by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel 
Council if found unfit for his PTSD.  

In the context of pending Congressional interest in this type of 
case, the Board may “liberally” consider the applicant’s 
previous deployments and the possible impact upon his overall 
pattern of behavior resulting in the General characterization of 
his service.     

A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at 
Exhibit D.



APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In response to the evaluations, the applicant submits 10 pages 
of supplemental documentation in support of his request.  These 
include a copy of the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) 
Disability Letter, dated 25 Jul 14 and five Letters of 
Recommendation.



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, to include his 
rebuttal comments, in judging the merits of the case; however, 
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.  We took into consideration the BCMR Medical 
Consultant’s recommendation to consider an upgrade of his 
discharge characterization to Honorable and change the reason 
for separation to “Secretarial Authority.”  However, after a 
thorough review of the available evidence of record we found no 
definitive causal or mitigating relationship between the 
applicant’s acts, misconduct and his co-morbid diagnoses of 
Adjustment Disorder, Occupational Problems and PTSD.  Therefore, 
we agree with the opinion and recommendation of AFPC/DPSOR and 
adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find 
no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.



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-2014-00503 in Executive Session on 10 Feb 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-00503 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Jan 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 28 Feb 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant, 
                 dated 1 Aug 14.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Aug 14.
	Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 30 Jul 14.
	Exhibit G.  FBI Report, dated 18 Jun 14.