RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01887

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In order to properly evaluate the actions that led to his arrest for public lewdness, it is necessary to be familiar with the circumstances leading to the event.  The three months prior to the arrest were particularly difficult for him.  He was under a great deal of emotional stress and pressure for several reasons.  Upon notification of shipment to Azores, his wife informed him that she was going to leave him.  She could not accept military life and the necessity of overseas tours of duty.  She left in June of 1972.  Shortly thereafter the death of his mother dealt him another emotional trial.  These factors, in combination with pressure from his job, led to the anxieties which later manifest itself in September 1972.  He does not feel that this isolated incident should be held against him.  This incident was not even close to “sexual perversion” since he was only relieving himself and did not think of anything sexual or directing anything towards the underage individual or her family.  He has led a productive life since his discharge from the Air Force and has been a valuable member of society.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant with prior service entered active duty in the Air Force on 6 August 1970 in the grade of sergeant.  The applicant served as a carpentry specialist.

On 29 November, 1972, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFM 39-12.  Specifically, the applicant did, on or about 26 September 1972, indecently expose himself to a minor female in the City of Plattsburgh, New York.

The applicant was advised of his rights in this matter and waived his right to appear before an administrative discharge board; however, he did submit a statement on his own behalf.

On 13 February 1973, the applicant was furnished an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge and was credited with 5 years and 7 days of active service and 1 year and 6 months of foreign and/or SEA service.

On 21 May 2015, a request for information pertaining to his post-service activities was forwarded to the applicant and counsel for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit C).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Psychiatric Advisor recommends denial indicating she would like to note that the applicant has not filed a timely petition.  It has been over 40 years since the applicant was discharged from the Air Force.  There is no valid reason mentioned as to why he did not submit a petition within three years of discharge or discovery.  Nevertheless, in the interest of justice this advisor carefully reviewed all the available medical documentation and military records.

This Psychiatric Advisor’s job does not involve investigation of the past events, but consists of providing the Board with the psychiatric opinion on the case to facilitate their adjudication.  It might be challenging to recreate ancient events, however, based on the documentation provided in the case file, the applicant admitted to displaying his genitals for viewing to an under-aged girl, by driving his car by her.  Even though, in his AFBCMR appeal he argues that his actions did not constitute a sexual perversion, as he was “only relieving myself of urine”, he admitted to exhibitionistic act in 1972.  Furthermore, this advisor has difficulty visualizing someone voiding on himself while operating a vehicle, and the claimed act of urination fails to explain the report that the applicant called girl’s attention to his genitals and was stroking it when she looked at it.  This advisor is not an expert on paraphilia and pedophilia, but the description is consistent with an act of sexual nature.

The applicant argues that this incident was a product of his stressed psyche.  The applicant even presents a supporting opinion of the psychiatrist that evaluated him prior to separation, who opined that the applicant had suffered an amnestic episode due to stress and depression and his behavior did not constitute perversion.  This psychiatric consultant recognizes that significant stressors can cause variety of psychiatric symptoms, however, feelings and behaviors are not equivalent.  As a society, we have acceptable versus unacceptable ways of expressing feelings of sadness, frustration, anger or other stress related emotions.  For instance, going on a shooting spree because one is depressed due to an extremely stressful job and very abusive boss would constitute a criminal act.  Sexually molesting a step-child, because one has marital issues and feels depressed and anxious would result in imprisonment.  Therefore, this psychiatrist advisor opines, that despite applicant’s adjustment related mental health issues, he is still fully accountable for his actions.  Furthermore, had the incident taken place in the contemporary times, applicant would be placed on the sexual offenders list.

This Psychiatric Advisor recognizes the sacrifices the applicant has made for this country and appreciates his service, but does not recommend upgrade of discharge characterization.

A complete copy of the Psychiatric Advisor’s evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He has been on a straight and narrow path since being discharged from the Air Force and is a productive citizen in his community.  It was a pleasure and an honor for him to serve in the United States Air Force.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed.  While the applicant claims a date of discovery of less than three years ago, in our view, the reasonable date of discovery of the alleged error or injustice was more than three years ago and the application is therefore untimely; however, it is in the interest of justice to waive 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 agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force OPR and adopt its rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has been the victim of an error or injustice.  We find no fault with the discharge process and the commander’s decision to discharge the applicant.  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-2015-01887 in Executive Session on 11 August 2016 and 29 August 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-01887 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 April 2015, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 21 May 2015.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor,
  dated 15 July 2016.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 July 2016.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, not dated.