RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01755 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge be upgraded. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He has a service-connected disability which he incurred or was aggravated while serving in the Air Force - in the line of duty. He would like to be treated by the DVA but they refuse to treat him for his injury. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 19 May 1966. The record reflects the applicant had a series of unauthorized absences from duty and on the applicant’s last absence of 41 days charges were preferred for disposition by an appropriate type of court. The pending request for discharge was initiated immediately following the notification to the applicant of the pending charges and such request, until acted upon, effectively stays the court-martial proceedings. The applicant received punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, on three different occasions, the three punishments being reduction to airman basic and two separate correctional custody sentences of 30 days each. On 20 March 1967, the applicant was sentenced in civil court to 50 days confinement for auto theft. The applicant received a psychiatric evaluation dated 10 March 1967 and was diagnosed with a sociopathic personality, anti-social type, chronic and moderate modes. The acting staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended discharge. On 21 July 1967, after being counseled, the applicant requested discharge under AFM 39-12, paragraph 2-78 for the good of the service. On 24 August 1967, the discharge authority concurred with the recommendations and directed an undesirable discharge. The applicant was discharged and received a UOTHC discharge on 25 August 1967. He served 8 months and 17 days on active duty. On 28 August 1975, 25 July 1977 and 5 April 1978, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request that his undesirable discharge be upgraded (Exhibit B). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. He provided no facts warranting a change to his character of service. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the applicant’s characterization of service was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge Manuel and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The DPSOS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The BCMR Medical Consultant states he found no evidence of an inequity or impropriety in the processing of his discharge and further opines he has not met the burden of proof of an error or injustice that warrants a change of the record. The board may elect to invoke its authority for an upgrade to General (under honorable conditions), based upon clemency, noting the applicant’s likely need for DVA medical care and the likelihood that his diagnosed sociopathic personality, anti-social type, chronic” played a contributory, albeit not excusable, role in his disregard for the consequences of his actions. The BCMR Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 26 January 2011, copies of the Air Force evaluations were 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 an injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of the existence 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-2010-01755 in Executive Session on 3 March 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-01755 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 April 2010, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 9 November 2010. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 21 January 2011. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 January 2011. Panel Chair