RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-01545

  	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, be changed from a general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was told that his character of service would automatically change after a period of six (6) months; however, he now knows that is a myth.  In addition, he was unaware until now that he was supposed to apply to have it changed.  He would never had accepted this type of discharge had he known.  He was under a lot of mental stress during that time, more than he was willing to talk about at that age.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered active duty in the Regular Air Force on 12 May 72.

On or about 13 Feb 73, the applicant willfully and wrongfully damaged, by kicking with his feet, a 1972 Ford Torino automobile, a value of about $2,500.00, in violation of Article 109, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  On 6 Mar 73, the applicant received an Article 15 for this offense.

On 14 Mar 73, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending him for discharge under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Chapter 2, Section A, paragraph 2-4b, because of character and behavior disorders because he was emotionally unsuitable for continued service.  On or about 2 Feb 73, he was diagnosed by the Mental Health (MH) clinic as having a chronic, severe character and behavior disorder, characterized by extreme immaturity.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation action and was afforded the opportunity to consult with legal counsel and submit statements in his own behalf.  After a legal review, the case was found to be legally sufficient to support separation.  

On 12 Apr 73, the applicant was furnished an under honorable conditions discharge, and was credited with 11 months and 1 day of active service. 

On 3 Sep 14, the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) issued Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards of 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). The Department has implemented this robust guidance in comprehensive and coordinated fashion, thereby easing the burden on Veterans seeking redress while simultaneously ensuring fair and consistent results in these difficult cases.  This guidance remains exceptionally important, and we must renew and re-double our efforts to ensure that all Veterans who have sacrificed so much in service to our great Nation receive all of the benefits that the Supplemental Guidance may afford.  Accordingly, the BCMRs/BCNR will waive, if it is applicable and bars consideration of cases, the imposition of the statute of limitation.  Fairness and equity demand, in cases of such magnitude, that a Veteran's petition receives full and fair review, even if brought outside of the time limit.  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.

The Board sent a copy of the Clemency Bulletin to the applicant on 23 Jun 16 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.  For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits E and F.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Advisor recommends denial of the application largely due to its extreme untimely presentation to the AFBCMR and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn his previous discharge characterization.  However, the Medical Advisor recommends a review by the Mental Health Advisor to validate whether or not there were sufficient mental health factors that should mitigate the applicant’s conduct and performance, warranting a change in his discharge characterization to Honorable.

With respect to the reason for discharge, under current standards, individuals who are unable to adjust to military service, if identified and acted upon within the first 180 days of service, are assigned an Uncharacterized character of service.  However, the applicant served 11 months and, even under today’s standards, the Uncharacterized option would not apply; making him vulnerable for the General discharge characterization he received.

The complete advisory is at Exhibit E.

The Psychiatric Advisor agrees with the Medical advisor.  There is no evidence at all of a mental health condition that had any effect on the behavior of the applicant.  The applicant wanted out of the service before completing his contract and apparently made that clear to his supervisors. Clearly, they granted his wish in the most generous way possible.  The applicant’s provides no post service record to contradict the attitude and behavior he demonstrated while in the military.

The complete advisory is at Exhibit F.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copies of the Air Force evaluations to the applicant on 10 Jul 18 for comment (Exhibit G), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was not timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendations of the Medical Advisor and Psychiatric Advisor and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The Board also notes the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552, and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).  While the applicant asserts a date of discovery less than three years before the Board’s receipt of the application, the Board does not find the assertion reasonable.  The Board finds the application untimely and concludes it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s record.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the application was not timely filed; it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay; and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2016-01545 in Executive Session on 29 Aug 18:

, Panel Chair 
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

	Exhibit A:  DD Form 149, dated 13 Apr 16, w/atchs. 
	Exhibit B:  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
	Exhibit C:  Memorandum, SECDEF, dated 24 Feb 16.
	Exhibit D:  Letter, Clemency Bulletin, dated 23 Jun 16
	Exhibit E:  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Advisor, dated 10 Jan 18. 
	Exhibit F:  Memorandum, Psychiatric Advisor, dated 8 Mar 17 [sic]. 	
	Exhibit G:  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 Jul 18.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.