(b) (6), (b) (7)(C) 	

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:	BC-2015-04638

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C) 	

COUNSEL:	NONE HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1.	His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable, or to a general, or medical discharge.

2.	By amendment at Exhibit I, he requests his sergeant stripes be reinstated.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
In an 8-page brief, he makes the following key comments and explains why he became disgruntled with his squadron and the reasons for the negative forms in his military records.

He explains that his lifelong desire was to become a New York police officer. He also describes an abusive experience, one week before graduation, during which he was yelled at, grabbed, and dragged from his bunk, striking his head on the floor; and supposedly knocked unconscious. He elected not to press charges so he could graduate.

He received orders to Jet Aircraft Technical School, which he hated attending every day, but passed with good grades. A little more than a year and a half had passed, and he attained his 5-level. Just before his 2-year Air Force anniversary, at which time he received his Sergeant stripes, he had a verbal confrontation with a senior non-commissioned officer (SNCO) regarding his dress and appearance after a long, hot flight back to Yokota from South Korea. Further, he had a delinquent NCO Club card debt from monthly membership dues and a trip to New York City to get married.

Despite these incidents, he received a high recommendation from his on-the-job training sergeant and was assigned to his own jet. His name was painted on the jet below the pilot and co- pilot as their Crew Chief. The “turning point” during his service occurred while he was on temporary duty (TDY) in South Korea. In those days, the U.S. was limiting the presence of its crew personnel in country to 30-day TDY periods. On one such TDY, after having completed pre-flight inspection on his own

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C) 	

aircraft, the applicant discovered a big area of wetness on the underbelly of another aircraft he had been asked to inspect for another crew chief. Because the aircraft was leaking fuel in excess of the allowable rate of drips per minute, the applicant grounded the aircraft. Subsequently, and without authority, a master sergeant signed off the aircraft for flight despite the applicant’s grounding notation in the aircraft flight log. The master sergeant then ordered the applicant to assist moving the aircraft back to the launching hangar. The applicant admits that he became “really belligerent” toward the master sergeant at that point and told him “to go screw himself.” He refused to help move the aircraft and walked away. Not long after, he heard an explosion, followed by alarm sirens. He went outside and saw smoke from the launching hangar. The aircraft he had attempted to ground had exploded, causing multiple deaths. The applicant remembers seeing two airmen unhooking the pilots from their seatbelts, but they were engulfed in flames. Soon after, an adjacent aircraft, which some airmen were trying to remove from the launching hangar, also exploded, killing them all. As the ammunition in the machine guns mounted under the jets began to fire, the applicant jumped into a sand bag bunker across the flight line with other survivors. He remembers he was crying and screaming and hyperventilating, knowing that he would have been among the dead if he had obeyed the master sergeant who overruled his grounding notation.

He acknowledges that, on several occasions, he received non- judicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for various actions. He received help in writing appeals from a base psychiatrist, who felt he should be given a medical discharge, whereas his squadron officials felt that a general discharge would have been sufficient. He has had many jobs since discharge and he believes that he has been punished long enough for acts he did as a teenager. He also believes that he was not undesirable to the Air Force, or to his country, or to his job as an aircraft crew chief, but was undesirable to those that he stood up to and expressed his opinion, ideas, and wants.

Finally, after being discharged, he had to have surgery, which he believes should have been done while he was serving in the Air Force. He had no insurance and was told that he would never be entitled to veterans’ benefits.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 2 May 1967.

On 20 January 1970, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of AFM 39-12.

On 24 April 1970, the applicant was discharged for misconduct with a service characterization of under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), and was credited with 2 years, 11 months, and 23 days of active service.

On 6 April 2016, the AFBCMR forwarded the Clemency Bulletin to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. In response to this request, the applicant provided a copy of an FBI report retrieved from the Criminal Justice Information Service Division, Clarksburg, WV, which reflects no prior arrest records are available. He also provides post-service documentation that can be found at Exhibit I.

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) issued Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or related conditions, such as Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). Following the SECDEF guidance, the BCMRs/BCNR will waive, if it is applicable and bars consideration of cases, the imposition of the statute of limitations. Similarly, cases considered previously, either by Discharge Review Boards (DRB), or by BCMRs or the BCNR, but without benefit of the application of the supplemental guidance, shall be, upon petition, granted de novo review utilizing the supplemental guidance.

A	complete	copy	of	the	Principal	Deputy	Under	Secretary	of	
Defense evaluation is	at Exhibit C.			
AFPC/JAJM notes that there is no apparent error or injustice that undermines the non-judicial punishment actions that preceded the applicant’s discharge from the Air Force. Based on the evidence of record, the non-judicial punishment imposed on the applicant is legally sufficient and his discharge with a UOTHC service characterization appears to have been warranted.

By way of background, between 9 April 1968 and 19 January 1970, the applicant received four non-judicial punishment actions under Article 15 of the UCMJ and one Letter of Reprimand. His misconduct included failure to go to his appointed place of

duty, disorderly conduct, being disrespectful to a noncommissioned officer (NCO), assault and battery of a senior NCO, threatening to kill a senior NCO, and operating a government vehicle without a government vehicle operator identification card. As the result of his misconduct, the applicant’s commander recommended that he be separated administratively, pursuant to the governing instructions for a UOTHC service characterization.

AFLOA/JAJM notes that they are not the OPR for assessing the legal sufficiency of administrative discharge actions. The sole issue raised by the applicant that falls within the purview of their office is the legal sufficiency of the non-judicial punishment actions imposed upon him. However, the applicant does not allege any error or injustice regarding these actions. Nor does he offer any new evidence, or allege any injustice, which tends to cast doubt on the findings of his commander during non-judicial punishment proceedings or the administrative discharge action. Although the applicant raises issues regarding his mental health at the time of his misconduct, he does not provide any medical documentation to establish that he ever was diagnosed with a mental health disorder. Nor does he offer any proof of a nexus between his mental health and his misconduct.

A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit E.
The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends consideration of an upgrade of discharge characterization to general. Should a mental health assessment uncover sufficient mitigation of the applicant’s misconduct, then an honorable discharge would be appropriate, with a change in reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority.

In a separate statement to the Board, the applicant asks to have his “Undesirable discharge reevaluated to a General or to a Medical, as was [allegedly] originally suggested by [his] squadron commander, [his] 1st Sgt, the base infirmary doctor, and the base chaplain, along with a few other Commissioned Officers who were familiar with [his] case.” No actual psychiatric narrative summary or evidence of evaluation or treatment of a mental disorder is supplied in the case file. It is possible that an individual who experienced the traumatic event described in the hanger explosion might experience a subsequent deficiency in impulse control, or even PTSD. However, the applicant had displayed outbursts of anger prior to the hangar incident. His displeasure with the aircraft crew chief duties appears evident, although apparently performing the duties without fault. Thus, the Medical Consultant found no evidence of a compensable Axis I diagnosis, other than possible Adjustment Disorder, which if sustained over a greater period of time could have become chronic, to explain the applicant’s pattern of behavior at a given  time.    Yet,  although  not  formally  diagnosed,  the

applicant’s reference to experiencing some form of  mental anguish cannot be ignored, as noted in his undated statement following one of his Article 15s.

If it were not for the death threat and physical assault made by the applicant, the Medical Consultant opines the nature of his other infractions might have warranted a general discharge. The applicant’s misconduct included failure to go, disorderly conduct, being disrespectful to a non-commissioned  officer (NCO), assault and battery of a senior NCO, threatening to kill a senior NCO, and operating a government vehicle without a government vehicle operator’s identification card.

The evidence is insufficient to warrant consideration of a medical basis for discharge. Moreover, no post-service medical evidence is supplied, within the 12 months following discharge, to indicate the Military Department failed to diagnose a compensable medical mental disorder. The Medical Consultant recommends obtaining an opinion from a psychologist or psychiatrist.

A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit F.

The BCMR Psychiatric Consultant finds sufficient evidence to warrant the desired change of the record and recommends upgrade of the applicant’s discharge characterization at least to a General, and a change in reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority. The applicant has been discharged from the Air Force almost 50 years ago. The antique age of this case file made it extremely difficult for the applicant to locate supporting evidence to assist in his claim. Since the BCMR is not an investigative agency, it can only review the information provided by the applicant. The case file is deficient in medical records, and military records alone make it very challenging to formulate a comprehensive  assessment  of  the case.

The Psychiatric Consultant does not argue that the applicant might have been given greater workload, as he has portrayed in his memoire attached to his application. However, the applicant has refused to take any responsibility for his actions. He continuously externalizes all his problems and does not take ownership of his own transgressions. The applicant had and has frequently used very dramatic descriptions of his psychological state; however, it is uncertain how to interpret it, since those are not medical opinions of the psychiatrist and are more reflective of the applicant’s artistic expression. In addition, the applicant has asked the Board to reconsider his discharge characterization, without any additional evidence, besides what has been present in 1970, when the original discharge disposition was made. In fact, the deciding authority had more information at their disposal than the Psychiatric Consultant.

The only “new” additions to the record are the applicant’s claims, the reliability of which the Board has to interpret.

The applicant described very disturbing event that took place in the summer of 1968. The superior’s disregard for the applicant’s decision to ground the plane for repairs resulted in the death of four airmen. There is no evidence of the incident in the military record; however, if such took place, it could potentially cause significant psychological distress. The reaction to the incident could result in the avoidance of the aircraft and failures to go, poor work performance and increase in irritability and anger.

Attention is brought to the applicant’s written statement following the assault on a SNCO. It is a two and a half page document written by the applicant, where he attempted  to describe and explain the incident. It was written in 1970, when the field of psychiatry did not yet describe diagnosis of PTSD and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) was in its infancy. The applicant reported poor job performance due to some mental issues, and as a result, he came to the SNCO with a request for a transfer. The applicant said, “There is something deep inside me scaring me from my job.” The applicant agreed to seek help and to be seen by psychiatrist, a chaplain, and a lawyer. Per applicant’s report, no one could offer any relief “then again leaving me with no advice feeling down in the dumps, and no place else to go for assistance.” The applicant also stated, “I have trouble falling asleep, sleeping and have scareful [sic] nightmares”. The applicant further described, “Under an irrezistible [sic] impulse my hands reached out grabbed his  collar.”  The applicant brought up the example from his childhood to minimize the seriousness of his behavior by stating, “As for example the many times my dad grabbed and threatened me. He at the time never realized he was saying this, due to me upsetting him. But later during the same day when he realized he had grabbed and beat me severely, he felt bad and when he  sort  of apologized it seemed a threat to me. But figuring he's upset and he's not realizing what he's saying, I never ran to police help and told them my dad threatened and assaulted me.” This disclosure is indicative of the applicant’s history of trauma in his childhood, prior to enlistment.

All those disclosures were made by the applicant in 1970, when there was no access to the internet where one might look up a list of symptoms. Furthermore, the list of symptoms that can be experienced by the individual post-trauma was not even in existence. The confessions made by the applicant in 1970 taken together with the applicant’s four Article 15s between January 1969 and January 1970, and his deteriorating performance reports provide a certain degree of credibility to the applicant’s contemporary report of the aircraft explosion. Therefore, the Psychiatric Consultant opines that in the event that the incident

described by the applicant in 1968 took place, there was a nexus between the applicant’s mental health issues and his misconduct. Consequently, the Board should consider an upgrade of discharge at least to a general, based on the guidance from the Secretary of Defense for liberal consideration in discharge upgrade requests by veterans claiming PTSD or TBI.

A complete copy of the BCMR Psychiatric Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit G.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In another 8-page brief, he reiterates his original contentions and provides additional information regarding his post-service activities that are as follows:

After being discharged from the Air Force, he got off on a slow start due to his undesirable discharge. He applied to the police department; however, he was not selected.  Knowing he had a wife and a one-year-old son to support, he found work as quick as he could. He experienced more rough times from 1986 through 2004 due to shops closing and jobs being sent overseas. He purchased his first home in Ocala in 1988, when he had what he thought was a secure job with a fire engine manufacturing plant, where he assembled hydraulic aerial ladders. However, when sales declined he was laid off. He was able to find work a few hours away. Thus, he rented his house to tenants who never made one payment, which forced him into foreclosure. He was in and out of jobs often, but was always looking for a job that would provide him with a pension—to no avail.

He had a heart attack in 2003 and applied for Social Security Disability to hold him over until he could return to work. Upon completion of his physical, he was classified as  totally disabled and could not return to work. At that point, he was only 55 years old and making the best money he had ever made in his life, but now he only receives one check a month. He had to move in with his parents because he could no longer afford his car payments or insurance.

He is now 68 years old and he asks for forgiveness, and to please upgrade his discharge, and if any way possible, reinstate his sergeant stripes.

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

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1.	The	applicant	has	exhausted	all	remedies	provided	by existing law or regulations.
1.	

2.	The application was not timely filed. However, in the interest of justice, the Board will excuse the failure to file on time.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice with regard to the applicant’s request to have his sergeant stripes reinstated. We find no evidence of error or injustice in the available records. In addition, the applicant does not claim an error exists nor does he provide evidence to substantiate an error occurred at the time he was reduced in grade to Airman Basic. Therefore, we conclude that no basis exists upon which to recommend favorable action on this portion of his request.

4.	Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice that warrants corrective action. In this regard, both the BCMR Medical Consultant and BCMR Psychiatric Advisor recommend upgrading the applicant’s discharge to general. While we do not condone the applicant’s behavior, which led to his discharge, we recognize the adverse impact of the applicant’s characterization and narrative reason for discharge. Although it may have been appropriate at the time, we believe it would be an injustice for the applicant to continue to suffer its effects. Thus, based on the totality of evidence in this case, the Board agrees with the Psychiatric Advisor’s assessment that there may be a nexus between the applicant’s mental health issues and his misconduct. In view of the foregoing, the Board believes it appropriate to upgrade his discharge to general (under honorable conditions) and to change his narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority” on the basis of clemency. The Board considered upgrading his discharge to honorable; however, the Board does not believe that an upgrade to fully honorable is warranted. Accordingly, the Board majority recommends that his records be corrected as indicated below.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 24 April 1970, he was discharged with a narrative reason for separation of “Secretarial Authority,” and furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge certificate.

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-04638 in Executive Session on 16 May 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Ms. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair Mr. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member

Ms. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member
All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR  Docket Number BC-2015-04638 was considered:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 23 Oct 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Memorandum, SECDEF, dated 24 Feb 16.
Exhibit D.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Apr 16, w/atch. Exhibit E.	Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 24 May 16. Exhibit F.	Memorandum, BCMR Consultant, dated 21 Jul 16. Exhibit G.	Memorandum, BCMR Psychiatric Advisor, dated
16 Feb 17.
Exhibit H.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Mar 17. Exhibit I.	Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings.

12/13/2017

X

(b) 	 (6),

(b)

(b) (6), (b) (7) 	
(ACss)oc(ia7t)e Director, AFBCMR Signed(Cb)y: