ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1991-02110

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING REQUESTED: NOT INDICATED

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

1. His bad conduct discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions).

2. His Primary Specialty Number, Title and Years and Months in Specialty, Item 11, on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty be corrected to include:

	a. 64530 – Inventory Management Specialist, 4 years

	b. 70250 – Administration Specialist, 3 years (No action required.  This is already annotated on the applicant’s DD Form 214.)

3. His Military Education, Item 14, on his DD Form 214:

	a.  Effective Writing, Aug 83 and Documentation Management Orientation Course, Jan 85.  (As noted below under the applicable authority, ancillary training courses, and any courses of less than 8 hours duration such as these, are not added to the DD Form 214).

	b. Basic Military Training, Aug 80 (No action required.  This is already annotated on the applicant’s DD Form 214.)

	c. Noncommissioned Orientation Officer Course, Sep 83; Inventory Management Course, Feb 81; Administrative Specialist, Nov 84; OJT Trainer Familiarization Course, Sep 85; Zenith  Z-100 Familiarization Course, Dec 85; and Records Management Orientation Course, Oct 86 (Will be administratively corrected)

RESUME OF THE CASE

On 21 Nov 91, the Board considered and denied a similar request to upgrade his discharge, finding that the applicant had provided insufficient evidence of an error or injustice to justify relief.  The Board also considered upgrading the applicant’s discharge on the basis of clemency; however, based on his overall record of service, they were not persuaded that an upgrade of his discharge was warranted on that basis.
For an accounting of the applicant’s original request and the rationale of the earlier decision, see the AFBCMR Letter and Record of Proceedings at Exhibit F.

On 2 Aug 19, the applicant requested reconsideration.  He again contends that his bad conduct discharge was excessively harsh, he worked in an extremely stressful work environment, and was experiencing much anxiety.  His psychological findings were never presented or considered during his court-martial.  In addition, his Area Defense Counsel was transferred from his case without explanation.  During his years of service, his character and behavior were excellent, as evidenced by the multiple certificates of accomplishment and recognition that he received. In support of his request for clemency, the applicant provides a personal statement, a Bachelor of Science degree from the Dallas Christian College, numerous certificates and letters of appreciation, and various other documents related to his appeal.

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

POST-SERVICE INFORMATION

On 27 Nov 19, the Board sent the applicant a standard request for post-service information.  The applicant provided a standard criminal history report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (Exhibit J).

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY

IAW AFI 36-3202, Separation Documents, Table 4, Rule 24, Item 14, list formal in-service training courses completed during continuous active military service (For Formal USAF Schools go to https://etca.randolph.af.mil ).  Omit ancillary training courses and any courses of less than 8 hours duration.

On 3 Sep 14, the Secretary of Defense issued a memorandum providing guidance to the Military Department Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records as they carefully consider each petition regarding discharge upgrade requests by veterans claiming PTSD.  In addition, time limits to reconsider decisions will be liberally waived for applications covered by this guidance.

On 25 Aug 17, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD P&R) issued clarifying guidance to Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records considering requests by veterans for modification of their discharges due in whole or in part to mental health conditions [PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual assault, or sexual harassment].  Liberal consideration will be given to veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on the aforementioned conditions.

Currently, service members diagnosed with mental health conditions receive heightened screening to ensure the causal relationship of possible symptoms and discharge basis is fully considered, and characterization of service is appropriate. Veterans discharged under prior procedures, or before verifiable diagnosis, may not have suffered an error because the separation authority was unaware of their condition or experience at the time of discharge.  However, when compared to similarly situated individuals under current standards, they may be the victim of injustice because commanders fully informed of such conditions and causal relationships today may opt for a less prejudicial discharge to ensure the veteran retains certain benefits, such as medical care.

Liberal consideration does not mandate an upgrade.  Relief may be appropriate, however, for minor misconduct commonly associated with the aforementioned mental health conditions and some significant misconduct sufficiently justified or outweighed by the facts and circumstances.  

On 25 Jul 18, the USD P&R issued further guidance with the intent to set clear standards.  Copies of the Board guidance memoranda are at Exhibit I.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor finds evidence of injustice in the decision rendered and recommends upgrading the bad conduct discharge to general (under honorable conditions).  This is the applicant’s third appeal for upgrade of his discharge characterization and he argues that the punishment was too harsh and that his previous excellent record of service and the findings of the psychological evaluation were not taken into consideration.  The Psychiatric Advisor reviewed the report of psychological evaluation that was performed at the time of the proceedings and documented that no psychiatric ailment had been identified and the applicant’s misconduct was a product of ongoing stressors and personality style.  The applicant had exceptional service prior to the incident with all of his Enlisted Performance Reports in the range of 8/9 and 9/9.  It is unmistakable that the misconduct was out of character for the applicant with no evidence of violence prior to or post incident.  However, there is no mental health condition to mitigate his actions.  On the other hand, the continuous and hostile work environment, as claimed by the applicant, can certainly deplete ones coping capacity.

The complete advisory is at Exhibit K.

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denying the application based on the merits.  The record contains insufficient evidence or allegation of error or injustice tending to undermine the sentence from the applicant’s general court-martial.  In accordance with Title 10 United States Code (U.S.C.), section 1552(f), the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records has no authority to overturn a court-martial conviction, but may, on the basis of clemency, adjust the sentence.  The applicant has not submitted any new evidence or information that casts doubt on the outcome of his trial.  The sentence adjudged and approved by the convening authority was within the permissible range for the offenses of which the applicant was convicted.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit L.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinions to the applicant on 20 Apr 20 for comment (Exhibit M), but has received no response.

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC Military Classifications reviewed the applicant’s request to add an Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) to his DD Form 214 dated 4 Mar 88.  AFPC stated the DD Form 214 for his previous period of active duty is required in order to determine if the AFSC was listed on that DD Form 214.  If the AFSC is in the previous DD Form 214, then no action is required.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION

As required by 10 U.S.C. 1556(a), a summary of the verbal communication made by AFPC Military Classifications to the Board was provided to the applicant on 7 May 20 for review and comment (Exhibit N), but the Board has not received a response.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board remains unconvinced the evidence presented demonstrates an error or injustice.  The Board does not have the authority to reverse, set aside, or otherwise expunge a court-martial conviction.  However, in accordance with 10 U.S.C., 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.  The Board considered upgrading the applicant’s discharge based on clemency; however, did not find the evidence presented sufficient to recommend upgrading his discharge on that basis.  Although the Psychiatric Advisor recommends upgrading the applicant’s discharge to a general, there is insufficient evidence the applicant had a mental health condition during his military service that should be considered as a mitigating factor for his misconduct.  As such, the Board is satisfied that the application of liberal consideration does not warrant relief.  Additionally, the applicant request that his DD Form 214 be updated to reflect “Basic Military Training, Aug 80” and “70250 – Administration Specialist, 3 years;” however, both are already annotated to his DD Form 214 so no action is required on this portion of his request.  The applicant also request the following courses “Effective Writing, Aug 83” and Documentation Management Orientation Course, Jan 85” be added to his DD Form 214.  However, IAW AFI 36-3202, Separation Documents, ancillary training courses and any courses of less than 8 hours duration should be omitted from the DD Form 214.  As such the Board finds no basis to add these courses to his DD Form 214.  With respect to the applicant’s request to change his DD Form 214 to reflect “64530 – Inventory Management Specialist, 4 years,” as pointed out by AFPC, the DD Form 214 for his previous period of active duty is required in order to determine if the AFSC was listed on that DD Form 214.  If the AFSC is not properly recorded, the applicant should submit another DD Form 149 along with the previous DD Form 214 for the Board’s consideration.  Therefore, aside from the administrative corrections noted above, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

The applicant has not shown a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

CERTIFICATION

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-1991-02110-2 in Executive Session on 29 May 20:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit F:	Record of Proceedings, w/ Exhibits A-E, dated 7 Jan 92.
Exhibit G:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 2 Aug 19.
Exhibit H:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit I:	Post Service Clemency Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 27 Nov 19 and 
	      Consolidated clarifying guidance, various dates.
Exhibit J:	Applicant’s response, dated 17 Dec 19.
Exhibit K:	Advisory opinion, AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor, dated 20 Dec 19.
Exhibit L:	Advisory opinion, w/atch, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 31 Jan 20.
Exhibit M:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 20 Apr 20.
Exhibit N: Electronic mail, SAF/MRBC, dated 7 May 20.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.