RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03210 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His administrative discharge be set aside and his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, Block 24 be changed from a general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. 2. He receives all back pay, entitlements and medical benefits. 3. His DD Form 214, Block 25, Separation Authority, be changed to “AR 635-200, paragraph 4-2” [sic]. 4. His separation code on his DD Form 214, Block 26, of “JKA” which denotes “Pattern of Misconduct” be changed to “MBK” which denotes “Expiration of Term of Service.” 5. His Reentry (RE) code “2B” on his DD Form 214, Block 7, which denotes “Discharged under general or other than honorable conditions” be changed to RE Code “1” to denote “reenlistment eligible.” 6. His narrative reason for separation on his DD Form 214, Block 28, “Misconduct-Pattern Discreditable Involvement with Military or Civil Authorities” be changed to “Released from Active Duty upon Termination of Enlistment.” _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In Nov 1990, he was erroneously separated In Accordance With (IAW) AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for misconduct which resulted in a gross injustice. The discharge, to include the characterization of service was not consistent with the events that occurred from 3 Sep to 23 Nov 1990. In Oct 1990, he was ordered to Correctional Custody (CC) for rehabilitation after being late to work. While in CC, he experienced severe anxiety and on 12 Oct 1990, presented to the inpatient mental health service. He was evaluated over a two week period and was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features and a personality disorder with passive-aggressive and narcissistic features. The medical provider failed to explore the diagnosis but instead recommended he be discharged based on the “longstanding” history of administrative measures taken against him since there was no evidence of a psychiatric or emotional problem that might warrant a medical separation. On 3 Sep 1990, two months prior to being separated he reenlisted. This was 53 days prior to the medical care provider’s recommendation for administrative separation. Clearly it is impossible to have a longstanding history of administrative measures against him in such a short time as misconduct from a previous enlistment cannot be used as a reason for separation. In Jan 1992, he began work as a defense contractor, building and testing military satellites. He was granted a Secret clearance from the Department of Defense (DOD) and worked on Air Force satellites. He is employed by National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as a systems engineer and flight operations test engineer. He has received numerous awards from NASA over the last 21 years. He graduated from the Community College of the Air Force (CCAF) and has maintained a long, steady employment history. He is a committed husband and has been married for over 15 years. He is a faithful parishioner at his church and donates time and money to multiple veterans and civilian charities. In support of his requests, he provides a brief prepared by his civilian counsel, a copy of his DD Form 214, National Archives (NA) Form 13038, Certification of Military Service; Final Legal Review of Discharge Action letter; Narrative Summary (NARSUM) Clinical Review and other various documents associated with his requests. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 5 Feb 1987, the applicant entered active duty. According to the NARSUM dated 26 Oct 1990, the applicant continued to insist the circumstances of his being placed in CC were beyond his control and he had no responsibility in causing his own difficulties. Efforts in group, milieu and individual therapy were focused towards directing the applicant to address the issue of responsibility for his problems, as well as his threats of suicide. It was apparent during the course of his hospitalization that no gains were made in either of the areas. At no point during his hospitalization, did the applicant appear depressed, nor did he complain of depressed mood. There was no evidence of abnormalities or disturbances of sleep, appetite, motivation, energy or anhedonia. In fact, he appeared to be comfortable and was pleasant and cooperative in relating to other members of the community. The applicant’s commander related that his apparent manipulation and lack of desire to remain in the military were obvious to the members of his squadron and chain of command. The medical care provider suggested the applicant be considered for administrative separation based on the longstanding history of administrative measures taken against him. His commander was agreeable and steps were taken to initiate discharging the applicant. When this option was presented to the applicant, he appeared to be quite satisfied and it was not until the last minute before his departure from the unit that he began to raise concerns about the possible consequences of his separation and future employment. The applicant was recommended for follow-up on an outpatient basis to help him deal with chronic characterological deficits and difficulties dealing with life stressors but refused to follow through with the recommendations. On 30 Oct 1990, the applicant’s commander’s informed him that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force for a pattern of misconduct consisting of discreditable involvement with military or civil authorities IAW AFR 39-10, with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The specific reasons for the discharge recommendation were a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failure to go to an appointed base detail, Article 15 for dereliction of duty, failure to go to appointed place of duty for which the previously suspended CC duty was vacated, and vacation of suspended reduction to the grade of Airman First Class (A1C) for failure to follow orders to complete CC duty. On 30 Oct 1990, the applicant acknowledged the commander’s notification for recommendation of discharge, his right to consult counsel and submit statements in his own behalf. The applicant checked “Yes” on Standard Form (SF) 93, Report of Medical History, dated 31 Oct 1990, question 16, “Have you ever been treated for a mental condition,” and question 19, “Have you ever been a patient in any type of hospital,” stating he had attempted suicide and was treated for the attempted suicide at Travis AFB, CA, from 12 to 24 Oct 1990. On 2 Nov 1990, the applicant consulted counsel. He waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf but requested character statements be considered. On 8 Nov 1990, the staff judge advocate determined the discharge recommendation was legally sufficient with one correction to the commander’s notification letter. The commander cited a failure to go to an appointed base detail on 27 Aug 1990 as a reason for the discharge recommendation; however, the misconduct occurred on a previous enlistment and could not be used as a reason for administrative discharge. The correction did not prejudice the applicant’s rights and did not warrant re-accomplishment of the notification letter. On 21 Nov 1990, the discharge authority approved the discharge recommendation. On 23 Nov 1990, the applicant was discharged with service characterized as a general (under honorable conditions) with a narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct – Pattern Discreditable Involvement with Military or Civil Authority.” He served 3 years, 9 months and 18 days on active duty. On 6 Mar 2014, the AFBCMR staff offered the applicant an opportunity to provide information pertaining to his activities since leaving the service. As of this date, this office has not received a response (Exhibit C). ________________________________________________________________ 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 error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred during the discharge process. 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 and it appears the reentry code assigned, the narrative reason for separation and corresponding separation code were consistent with the discharge. In view of these findings, we also find no basis to recommend that he receive any back pay. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the characterization of the applicant’s discharge based on clemency; however, after considering his overall record of service, the offenses which led to his administrative separation and the post-service information in the application, we are not persuaded that an upgrade on this basis is warranted. Therefore, in view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought. 4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. ________________________________________________________________ By majority vote, the Board recommended denial of the application. Member voted to correct the applicant’s narrative reason for separation but did not wish to submit a minority report. The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2013-03210 in Executive Session on 6 and 15 May 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Jun 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Mar 2014, w/atch. Panel Chair 1