RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02371 COUNSEL:	NONE
HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His discharge, with undesirable character of service, be upgraded.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was forced to sign his discharge while under duress from his squadron commander. The only reason he signed it was because he was told the discharge would become honorable in six months.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 18 Nov 69, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.
On 20 May 71, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failing to obey a lawful order. He was advised that he could consult an attorney and submit matters in extenuation, mitigation, or defense. He accepted the NJP and did not submit matters in extenuation, mitigation, or defense. He was punished with 14 days extra duty and did not appeal the punishment.

From 20 Jul 71 through 9 Jan 72, according to the applicant’s AF Form 1226, Record of Court-Martial Convictions and Time Lost, he has recorded seven incidents (76 total days) of Absent Without Leave (AWOL) or Desertion.

On 28 Oct 71, the applicant was offered NJP making a false official statement. He was advised he could consult an attorney and submit matters in extenuation, mitigation, or defense.

On 1 Nov 71, [for the false official statement] the applicant accepted the NJP and did not submit matters in extenuation, mitigation, or defense. He was punished with a reduction in rank to the grade of airman basic. He appealed the punishment on the grounds it was unduly severe.

On 5 Nov 71, after considering the entire file and consulting with the Staff Judge Advocate, the applicant’s commander denied the appeal.

On 9 Feb 72, the applicant was discharged with undesirable character of service, and was credited with 2 years and 14 days of active service.

On 21 Jun 14, a post-service information request was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C).

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits D, E, and F.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant received multiple punishments under Article 15 and was tried by a summary court- martial. Part of the record is unclear about the dates, so this advisory will only discuss what is apparent from the record.

From on or about 18 Oct 71 to on or about 20 Oct 71, the applicant failed to go to his place of duty in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. On [five occasions], the applicant failed to go to his place of duty in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. On or about 12 Jul 71, the applicant wrongfully possessed a marijuana cigarette, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ. On or about 20 Oct 71, the applicant wrongfully communicated a threat to injure [a non- commissioned officer], in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. On or about 17 Oct 71, the applicant was disrespectful to [a non- commissioned officer], in violation of Article 91, UCMJ. From on/or about 15 Nov 71 to on/or about 7 Dec 71, the applicant failed to go to his place of duty in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. Again, from on or about 8 Dec 71 to on or about 10 Jan 72, the applicant again failed to go to his place of duty in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. On 11 Jan 72 he was offered NJP for his misconduct. He was advised he could consult an attorney and submit matters in extenuation, mitigation, or  defense.  He accepted NJP and did not submit matters in extenuation, mitigation, or defense.   He was punished with forfeitures of
$25.00. He did not appeal.
The applicant also went to a summary court-martial and was found guilty of 2 specifications in violation of Article 86, UCMJ, in 1971, for failure to go to his place of duty. However, the best available copy provided is difficult to read the specifications and exact dates of the failure to go. Though the court-martial specifications were illegible, it appears that the punishment was

a $25.00 fine. The NJP and the NJP adjudged at the court-martial and approved by the convening authorities were within the range of permissible punishments. The applicant was afforded all of his appellate rights.

Based on all of the misconduct, it is recommended the Board not grant relief based on any error or injustice with the NJP or court-martial process and not upgrade his discharge characterization.

A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit D.
The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends there is no basis in medicine to upgrade the applicant’s discharge. The applicant is advised there was, and is no, Air Force policy mandating an automatic upgrade of discharge to Honorable six months after discharge. Research by this reviewer indicates the applicant’s involuntary discharge with an undesirable character of service, utilized in the early 1970s, could be analogized to an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions character of service. Such a characterization could, in theory, impede the applicant’s access to services and benefits under the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).  There is no supplied evidence of treatment or referral for a behavioral disorder during military service; therefore, attention was directed to the applicant’s performance reports in the effort to identify any clues suggestive of an undiagnosed mental disorder, such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

The applicant’s Airman’s Performance Report (APR) for the period of performance 18 Nov 69 through 1 Jan 71 shows all front-side “1s” [out of a possible “9”] in performance, working relations, learning ability, self-improvement efforts, adaptability to military life, and bearing and behavior. The rating official’s comments included: “Has proven himself to be unreliable and thoroughly lacking in the performance of his duties. Has had much difficulty in the performance of duties due to the complete lack of self-initiative, careless attitude and disregard for promptness in reporting for duty at the specified time. Uncooperative and negative attitude in failing to achieve the basic requirements of duties typically exemplifies his approach to most assignments.” The APR for the period 2 Jan 71 through 1 Apr 71 consisted of front-side “2s” and “1s.” The rating official characterized the applicant’s performance as “marginal” and noted he had been “very uncooperative” in the performance of given assignments, “questioning the authority of supervisors and in general irritating those with whom he works.” He has also been “very lax in military bearing often needing haircut, shave, uniform maintenance, shoe shine etc.”

The applicant’s presumed rating official, describes the reasons for the referral report as “duty performance is less  than desirable of what is expected of an individual and Airman. Failure to meet military bearing, behavior, and personal appearance. The complete lack of self-initiative,  negative attitude and irresponsible actions toward performance of routine duties.”

Further, the case file contains disciplinary punishment documents, which include unauthorized absences, failure to report to his appointed placed of duty, wrongful possession of marijuana, use of disrespectful language to a superior noncommissioned officer, and [making] a false official statement. Another disciplinary document, proposes a second Article 15 for the applicant who absented himself from his organization. Other personnel action documents also indicate multiple instances in which the applicant failed to report to duty at the prescribed time. These included a failure to return from authorized leave and failure to report to duty and unauthorized absence; at one point the applicant had been absent for 30 consecutive days.

The applicant has supplied limited post-service medical documentation depicting a psychiatric evaluation conducted at a Community Mental Health Center on 8 May 14. The summary only indicates that the applicant had been under treatment for PTSD (military, Vietnam War) and that he was currently homeless and staying with friends and family while awaiting housing. The very brief medical entry indicates that there were no psychiatric hospitalizations since last evaluation and that “he takes meds daily as prescribed.” The Axis I diagnosis: PTSD, Chronic.

The Consultant is familiar with current policy directing Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records to “liberally” consider PTSD [or one or more symptoms of] as a possible mitigating factor when reviewing misconduct discharges in Vietnam-era veterans.		The Medical	Consultant		acknowledged		the		applicant		has		since	been diagnosed with PTSD and that he has been under treatment for the same.		However,	there		is	no		service		or	post-service	narrative supplied to indicate the precipitating cause of the applicant’s PTSD		or		when		it		was	first	diagnosed.		There		is		no		evidence supplied		to	indicate	a	nexus		with	military	service	has	been established by the DVA.		There is also no discussion of any combat or	other			significant		traumatic		experiences		during		military service, only the phrase “(military, Vietnam war)” indicating that the applicant is a Vietnam-era veteran.	Thus, with the limited supplied		evidence,		the		Medical		Consultant	found	it	virtually impossible to identify matters in mitigation and extenuation as relates to the applicant’s character of service and PTSD; nor to clearly establish a nexus between the diagnosis of PTSD and the poor performance measures that likely resulted in his discharge. Indeed, the negative assessments of the applicant’s performance and bearing, in the absence of identifiable mitigating diagnostic triggers,		so	soon	after	entering	military	service,		suggests	a

generally poor adaptation to military service itself. The Medical Consultant opines, under today’s rules of engagement, had the applicant’s difficulties been acted upon within 180 days of enlistment, he would have been vulnerable for an Entry-Level Separation with an Uncharacterized character of service for Unsuitability. The applicant’s recurring unauthorized absences and two Article 15s could have independently justified a discharge for Misconduct. There are no explanations or compelling reasons for the recurring absences in the supplied case file, e.g., family emergency, hardship, or obligations to a third party. The Medical Consultant is sensitive to the applicant’s current challenges, but found no medical basis to recommend amending the record to reflect a change in service characterization.

The Medical Consultant found no basis in medicine to recommend upgrade of discharge characterization. However, the Board may choose to recharacterize his service as General under Honorable Conditions discharge under Clemency.  Doing so will afford this

veteran	the	opportunity	to	receive	services	through	the	DVA,	
noting	he	achieved	the	minimum	24	months	of	active	military	
service.			
A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit E.

The BCMR Mental Health Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. After a complete review of the applicant's submission, evidence of record, to include the available military personnel and medical records, this Consultant concurs with the 21 Jan 15 advisory opinion rendered by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant. The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to conclude error or injustice has been committed sufficient as to warrant redress. Additionally, this Consultant concurs with the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s recommendation that upgrade of service characterization is not supported by the medical evidence.

A complete copy of the BCMR Mental Health Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit F.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to  the applicant on 18 Sep 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit G). 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 warranting corrective action to the applicant’s narrative reason for separation. After a thorough review of the evidence of record we believe that given the circumstances surrounding his separation from the Air Force, the character of service assigned was proper and in compliance with the appropriate instructions. In addition, the applicant has not provided any evidence which would lead us to believe that a change in his record is warranted. Therefore, we agree with the Air Force OPRs and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented warrant such consideration. 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 material 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-2014-02371 in Executive Session on 22 Oct 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member

The	following	documentary	evidence	pertaining	to	AFBCMR	Docket Number BC-2014-02371 was considered:

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Jun 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jun 14.
Exhibit D.	Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 8 Jan 15. Exhibit E.	Memorandum, SAF/MRBC, dated 21 Jan 15. Exhibit F.	Memorandum, SAF/MRBC, dated 17 Sep 15. Exhibit G.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Nov 15.