RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-05141 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to “honorable.” APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He lost his best friend in an automobile accident and thought he could handle his death without any support so he never sought grief counseling. He was afraid that his peers would think less of him and he did not want to lose his top secret security clearance. During his absence from the base he contacted a counselor and started the long process of healing. Upon return to military control, he stayed on lite duty for a month; however, he was embarrassed to return to work. Instead, he wanted to go back to the family farm so he asked for a hardship discharge. Now at age of 47 he is a chaplain for a local police department, which allows him to listen and work with officers and members of the community who experience loss and grief. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 4 September 1987, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. In a letter dated 22 March 1988, the Chief, Mental Health Services determined that because of the applicant’s tendency to develop anger and resentment of others, and because his rigid style would cause him to eventually act out on that anger, he recommended the applicant be permanently decertified from the Personnel Reliability Program. He was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct and paranoid personality traits. The aforementioned personality traits have a poor prognosis for change which would make it difficult for him to function effectively in the military. Therefore, in the best interest of the Air Force, separation was recommended. According to AF Form 286a, Notification of Personnel Reliability Program Decertification Action, dated 23 March 1989, the applicant was permanently decertified of duties conducted under AFR 35-99, Nuclear Weapons Personnel Reliability Program, based on an evaluation conducted by the mental health clinic and for being absent without leave. On 5 April 1989, his commander notified him that he was recommending he be discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen for “Misconduct: Commission of a Serious Offense.” The specific reason for this action was on 7 March 1989, while posted as a sentinel, he left his post before being regularly relieved. In addition, on that same day, he absented himself from his squadron and remained absent until 9 March 1989. On 5 April 1989, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification, and on 7 April 1989, he indicated that he consulted with counsel and waived his right to submit written materials in response to this action. On 19 April 1989, the Assistant Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge legally sufficient. On 4 May 1989, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. His narrative reason for separation is “Misconduct - Other Serious Offenses.” He served 1 year, 7 months and 28 days on active duty. He had lost time for the period 7 through 8 March 1989. On 22 January 2015, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C), 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 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 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 in the discharge processing. 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. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, in the absence of any evidence related to the applicant’s post-service activities, the board was unable determine (from the current record available to us) if the applicant’s accomplishments since leaving the service warrant such an action. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought. 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-2014-05141 in Executive Session on 1 September 2015, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 December 2014. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 January 2015, w/atch. 1 2