RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05578 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. 2. His narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct (Other)” be changed to “Medical.” ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His discharge was inequitable because it was based on isolated events in 49 months of service and his medical records were not taken into consideration. He was found asleep on post for no more than a few minutes. His supervisors were aware that he was not a reliable option for posting based on his medical condition. His supervisors were notified that his Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) status was suspended. His medical records stated that he was unfit for duty and was not able to carry a weapon, nor take post per medical orders. He was placed on “Pride Flight” which is a term that his unit used for individuals unable to possess firearms or stand post due to various reasons. He was caught sleeping on post due to his insomnia and was tried by summary court-martial. The commander at his summary court- martial reported that his character of service and duty performance prior to the offenses was below average. He finds this statement absurd considering the commander had only been in his position a few weeks prior to the court-martial hearing. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, a letter from his Area Defense Counsel (ADC), a memorandum from the Airman and Family Readiness Center, character letters, and military personal records. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 14 Jul 09, the applicant entered active duty in the Regular Air Force. On 8 Aug 11, the applicant was notified by his squadron commander that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for a pattern of misconduct. The reasons for the proposed action were: (1) On or about 24 Apr 11, while posted as a sentinel, the applicant was found sleeping on post. For this misconduct, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) consisting of a reduction to the grade of airman, a suspended forfeiture of $822.00 pay through 5 Nov 11, 20 days extra duty, and a reprimand; (2) On or about 10 Jun 11, the applicant failed to obey a lawful order by sitting inside his vehicle when he was ordered to stand outside of his vehicle unless there was inclement weather. For this misconduct, he received a vacation of the suspended NJP resulting in a forfeiture of $822.00 pay; and (3) On or about 10 Jun 11, while posted as a sentinel, he was found sleeping on his post. For this misconduct, he received a vacation of the suspended NJP and was found guilty by a summary court-martial. As a result, he was sentenced to a reduction to the grade of airman basic, three days confinement, hard labor without confinement for seven days, forfeiture of $452.00 pay per month for one month, and a reprimand. On 8 Aug 11, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and after consulting with legal counsel, waived his right to submit a statement in his own behalf. The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support separation. The discharge authority approved the separation and directed he receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 22 Aug 11, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for Misconduct, with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions). He served on active duty for a period of two years, one month, and nine days. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. DPSOR states that based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge 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 submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. DPSOR states that there is insufficient evidence contained within the applicant’s military record to confirm the circumstances and facts surrounding the applicant’s discharge. Absent such documentation, there is a presumption of regularity in which the applicant was afforded due process. AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.50.2, states that airmen are subject to separation for misconduct that disrupts order, discipline, or morale within the military community. This category of misconduct usually involves causing dissent, disruption, and degradation of mission effectiveness. The applicant received numerous verbal counseling on various occasions. Despite the unit’s best efforts, the applicant did not respond to the counseling he received. The continued nature of these documented instances of misconduct, despite frequent rehabilitative efforts, satisfied the requirements of the instruction and justified discharge. The applicant’s repeated incidents of misconduct reflected an unwillingness to conform to Air Force standards, thus, a basis existed under paragraph 5.50.2., to support the applicant’s separation from the Air Force. According to AFI 36-2308, paragraph 1.18.2, if an airman’s service has been honest and faithful, a general (under honorable conditions) service characterization is warranted when significant negative aspects of the airman’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the airman’s military record. The negative aspects of the applicant’s short Air Force career outweighed the positive. Therefore, a general service characterization is most appropriate in this case. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends granting the applicant relief by changing the narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority,” with an honorable character of service. The Medical Consultant states that the case confronting him and the AFBCMR is to determine if there has been an error or an injustice in the applicant’s discharge. If this case was presented before a Discharge Review Board (DRB), the task would be to determine if there was an inequity or impropriety in the applicant’s discharge. With respect to the applicant’s discharge characterization, it should be known that Security Forces personnel are held to a higher standard of conduct and behavior and that sleeping on duty is [a non-starter] considered a particularly significant departure from standards of military conduct; for those charged with protecting military personnel and material assets, as in standing post. On the other hand, the applicant’s medical documentation has identified a likely source of his tardiness [not fully within his span of control without medication], emanating from his insomnia and non- restorative sleep. As a result, he entered upon a cycle of increased stress, increased insomnia, and recurrent tardiness. Although “getting into trouble” was a contributory cause of the applicant’s increased stress, the record indicates that there were family and occupational stressors experienced by him as well; noting his reported application for voluntary separation and inability to cross-train; perhaps a decision too late in the course of events to secure. As implicit in the advisory from DPSOR and following a likely contention [called issue] before a DRB, the usual argument of harshness [too harsh], inequity, or impropriety would likely not outweigh the applicant’s occupational expectations, which demands fully engaged personnel at all times of duty; notwithstanding his high marks in bearing and performance prior to his series of troubles, which the applicant feels should have been taken into consideration. Therefore, viewing this case through the lens of the BCMR, there is some suggestion of error [by legal choice of the commander] and an injustice [resulting lifelong General discharge] by selecting Misconduct, as opposed to Adjustment Disorder [a recurring diagnostic conclusion], as a basis for discharge; perhaps with an awareness that this would bring an Honorable discharge [implicitly bad message to Security Forces for sleeping on duty]. The Medical Consultant, alone, is at a disadvantage absent the benefit of cross-talk during a DRB personal appearance or administrative hearing. Nevertheless, rather than putting the applicant through the DRB process, albeit the alternative administrative remedy which may not have been exhausted, the Medical Consultant finds sufficient evidence to recommend changing the reason for discharge to “Secretarial Authority” with an upgrade of discharge characterization to “Honorable.” The complete BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 24 May 13, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. After carefully reviewing the evidence of record and the assessments provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant, we believe partial relief is warranted. The applicant contends that his discharge was inequitable because it was based on isolated events in 49 months of service and that his medical records were not taken into consideration. The applicant states that the issues while in the military were directly related to depression, chronic insomnia, and medications he was prescribed, not misbehavior. We note the Medical Consultant has thoroughly reviewed this case and recognizes that Security Forces personnel are held to a higher standard of conduct and behavior and that sleeping on duty is considered a significant departure from standards of military conduct. The Medical Consultant opines that the applicant’s incidents of sleeping on post could be considered a pattern of continued disregard for military standards and good order and discipline. However, he believes that it is reasonable that the applicant’s underlying medical conditions could have attributed to his incidents of sleeping on post. While the applicant’s discharge may have been procedurally correct and within the discretion of the discharge authority, we find the Medical Consultant’s rationale compelling and adopt it as the basis for our recommendation to change his narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority” and upgrade his discharge to honorable. Therefore, in view of the above, we recommend his 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 APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 22 Aug 11, he was honorably discharged, with a narrative reason for separation of “Secretarial Authority,” rather than “Misconduct (Other),” and was furnished an Honorable Discharge certificate. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-05578 in Executive Session on 5 Sep 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2012-05578 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Nov 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 6 Feb 13. Exhibit D. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, 10 Apr 13. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 24 May 13. Panel Chair