RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00848

  			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be changed to 
a medical discharge.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was recommended for a medical discharge six months prior to 
his discharge for misconduct.  The misconduct was symptomatic 
and characteristic of his deteriorating mental health. His 
mental health issues were determined to be a service connected 
disability in Jul 13.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 17 Sep 02, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.

On 1 Oct 03, he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for 
failing to show up for his M-16 appointment on 11 Aug 03.  He 
acknowledged receipt that day and did not provide a written 
response.

On 28 Oct 03, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for 
failing to show up for work at the start of the duty day.  He 
acknowledged receipt that day and did not provide a written 
response.
 
On 10 Nov 03, he received an LOR for failing to follow a Lawful 
Order or Regulation to go to his place of duty.  He acknowledged 
receipt the same day and did not submit a written response.

On 22 Dec 03, he received an Article 15, Uniformed Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ), for failure to go to his appointed 
place of duty.  He was reduced in grade to airman basic 
suspended through 22 Jun 04 unless vacated sooner.   

On 24 Dec 03, he signed the notification from his commander that 
he was reducing him in grade to airman basic suspended through 
22 Jun 04, unless vacated sooner. 

On 16 Jan 04, he was notified his rater was giving him a 
referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) based on conduct 
on/off duty, his failure to return to duty and the Article 
15 punishment.  On 5 Feb 04, he acknowledged receipt of the 
referral EPR.

On 27 Feb 04, he received notification his commander recommended 
him for discharge per AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of 
Airmen, paragraphs 5.11.9 and 5.49.

On 3 Mar 04, he acknowledged his rights, indicated he consulted 
counsel and was submitting written statements for consideration.

On 15 Mar 04, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA), found the case 
legally sufficient pursuant to AFI 36-3208, paragraphs 5.11.9 
and 5.49, citing paragraph 5.49, minor disciplinary infractions, 
as the primary basis for discharge, with a general service 
characterization, without probation or rehabilitation.   

On 5 May 04, the discharge authority upheld the discharge based 
on recommendations of the commander and the SJA and ordered the 
separation of the applicant with a general discharge, citing AFI 
36-3208, paragraph 5.49, minor disciplinary infractions as the 
primary reason.      

On 14 May 04, the applicant received a general (under honorable 
conditions) discharge.  He was credited with 1 year, 7 months 
and 28 days of active service.   


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice.  Based on a review of the master 
personnel records, the discharge to include the Separation 
Program Designator code, narrative reason for separation and 
character of service, was consistent with the procedural and 
substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was 
within the discretion of the discharge authority. 

According to AFI 36-3208, paragraph 1.18.2, a general discharge 
is appropriate with “significant negative aspects of the 
airman’s conduct or performance of duty outweighs positive 
aspects of the airman’s military record.”  The discharge 
authority concluded that his misconduct outweighed the positive 
aspects of his brief military service and directed a general 
discharge.   

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there 
is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  At the time of the 
applicant’s discharge, he did not carry a diagnosis that 
rendered him eligible for processing through the military 
Disability Evaluation System (DES), under AFI 36-3212, Physical 
Evaluation for Retention, Retirement and Separation.  At the 
time of his discharge, his adjustment disorder with depressed 
mood was not considered a compensable medical condition 
warranting processing through the DES.

The applicant was the subject of dual administrative bases for 
discharge, both under AFI 36-3208.  Unlike, “dual-action” cases 
referred to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council 
where there co-exists an approved administrative discharge, 
under AFI 36-3208, and a compensable medical discharge, under 
AFI 36-3212, the medical consultant believes it was within the 
commander’s authority to execute either of the administrative 
bases for discharge; and to determine, of the two choices, which 
one predominated.  Thus, the choice of discharge 
characterization by the commander indicates an implicit belief 
that the negative aspects of the applicant’s service outweighed 
the positive and, thus, warranted a general (under honorable 
conditions) characterization of service.  However, due to the 
applicant’s unique circumstance, the board may alternatively 
offer a change in narrative reason for discharge to Secretarial 
Authority and issue an Honorable service characterization.           

The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit 
D.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 24 Nov 14 (Exhibit E) for review and comment within 
30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this 
office.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant recommends denial 
indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  
The version of AFI 44-109, Mental Health, Confidentiality, and 
Military Law, in effect at the time of the applicant’s discharge 
directed in paragraph 4.4., “For Air Force members with 
sufficiently severe personality disorders and a pattern of 
imminently dangerous behavior, the recommendation to the 
commander should note that, considering the circumstances, 
separation action should be initiated as soon as reasonably 
possible.”  However, there is no evidence in the psychologist’s 
recommendation for discharge that the applicant’s disorders met 
requirements for expeditious processing and HQ AFPC/DSPOR has 
advised that the applicant’s discharge met procedural and 
substantive requirements.  

The Clinical Psychology Consultant also notes that the 
applicant’s adjustment disorder and his personality disorder did 
not meet criteria for a physical disability as defined in 
E2.1.25 of DoD Instruction 1332.38, Physical Disability 
Evaluation, (in effect at the time of his discharge). Therefore, 
his condition would not have triggered processing the applicant 
into the disability evaluation system via a medical evaluation 
board.  This Consultant recognizes the often intertwined nature 
of psychological functioning and behavior, but also opines that 
the associated features of personality disorders or adjustment 
disorders do not preclude holding Service members accountable 
for misconduct.  As addressed in the recommendation for 
discharge from a clinical psychologist, subsequent misconduct 
and final disposition do not appear to support the applicant’s 
request for a change in reason for discharge. 
 
The complete AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant evaluation is 
at Exhibit F.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force Clinical Psychology Consultant 
evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9 Jun 15 (Exhibit 
G) for review and comment within 30 days.  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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice regarding the 
applicant’s request to change his discharge to medical.  The 
applicant alleges he should have received a medical discharge 
due to deteriorating mental health that caused his misconduct.  
We took notice of the applicant's complete submission, including 
attachments, in judging the merits of the case; however, we 
agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force 
Medical Consultant and Clinical Psychologist and adopt their 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant’s 
disciplinary infractions were the primary basis for discharge.  
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 was the subject of dual 
administrative bases for discharge whereby his commander 
exercised authority to execute the administrative bases due to 
the negative aspects of the applicant’s service.  Therefore, we 
find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

4.  Notwithstanding the above, we believe relief is warranted 
with respect to the applicant’s characterization of service and 
narrative reason for separation.  We note that the discharge 
action taken against the applicant was in accordance with the 
applicable instruction.  However, after reviewing the 
applicant’s request and the evidence of record, we find the 
characterization of service and narrative reason for separation, 
to be inappropriate.  In our deliberations of this case, it 
appeared to us that the applicant’s deteriorating medical 
condition was the cause of his inability to adapt to military 
life.  In addition, the relatively minor misconduct took place 
primarily after the discharge recommendation for a mental health 
condition was made.  In view of the foregoing, we recommend the 
applicant’s records be corrected to the extent indicated below.


THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show his 
character of service as “Honorable” and his narrative reason for 
separation as “Secretarial Authority.”  


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-00848 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Feb 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 7 Aug 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, 
	         	  dated 2 Oct 14.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Nov 14.
        Exhibit F.  Memorandum, AFBCMR Clinical Psychologist,
			  dated 28 May 15.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jun 15.