RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF				DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-01626

							COUNSEL:

							HEARING: YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His separation program designator (SPD) “265” and narrative reason for separation of “Attrition, Unsuitability-Character and Behavior Disorders” be replaced with a more favorable code and narrative reason.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He does not have a character and behavior disorder nor was he unsuitable.  Prior to his discharge he spent nearly two and a half years in service without any issues.  He made one stupid, youthful mistake and is stigmatized for the rest of his life.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former Air Force sergeant.  

On 31 Aug 72, he was discharged with an Under Honorable Conditions discharge.

On 16 Aug 72, the applicant was notified of the commander’s intent to recommend the applicant be discharged from the Air Force.  The reasons for the action included:  Passive aggressive personality manifested by obstructionism, procrastination, intentional inefficiency, stubbornness, resentment of authority, resentment of the military structure, anti-war, drug abuse, mild anxiety, intense anger, and a general refusal to cooperate with the military system.

On 16 Aug 72, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and elected to not submit a statement on his behalf.

On 22 Aug 72, the discharge action was found legally sufficient and the discharge authority approved the recommendation on 28 Aug 72.  

On 27 May 04, the applicant applied to the BCMR, and requested upgrade of his discharge.  Chief of Staff of the Air Force Memorandum, dated 24 Nov 04, directed the applicant’s records show that on 31 Aug 72 he was honorably discharged and furnished an Honorable Discharge certificate. 

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits C and D.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denying the application.  

The separation code and narrative reason for separation are correct as indicated on the applicant’s DD Form 214.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

BCMR Mental Health Consultant recommends denying the application.  

Applicant was discharged for having an unsuitable mental health condition of Passive Aggressive Personality Type.  He was given this diagnosis by a credible mental health care provider based on the following symptoms observed and reported during evaluation, “obstructionism, procrastination, intentional inefficiency, stubbornness, resident of authority, resentment of the military structure, anti-war, drug abuse, mild anxiety, intense anger, and a general refusal to cooperate with the military system.”  These presenting symptoms at the time of evaluation appeared to be appropriate and consistent to the diagnostic criteria of Passive Aggressive Personality.  The applicant had overtly and passively expressed his desires to separate from the Air Force and intentionally engaged in inappropriate behaviors such as smoking marijuana daily, threatening, and eventually went absent without official leave (AWOL), and was uncooperative with the military structure as ways to get out of the Air Force.  The deterioration of his work performance coupled with his misconduct issues led to his eventual discharge as they were found to be unsuiting to remain in the Air Force.

The applicant did not furnish any medical/mental health records or other additional evidence or information from 1972 and beyond, to support that there was an error or injustice with his discharge.  The applicant has not met the burden of proof of error or injustice that warrants the desired change of the record

The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 2 Apr 18 for comment (Exhibit E), and the applicant replied on 17 Apr 81.  The applicant reiterated that he had excellent evaluations prior to his discharge, and that he was not examiner by a physician.  He could not have a personality disorder and accomplish what he has.  The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES:

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 recommendation of AFPC/DP2STM and the BCMR Mental Health Consultant 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).  Moreover the applicant has offered no plausible reason for the delay in filing the application.  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 records.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS:  

The applicant be informed that 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.

The application was adjudicated without a personal appearance.

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-2016-01626 in Executive Session on 8 May 18:

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

Exhibit A:  Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 18 Apr 16.
Exhibit B:  Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:  Advisory Opinion, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 13 Jul 16.
Exhibit D:  Advisory Opinion, BCMR Mental Health Consultant, dated 8 Mar 18.
Exhibit E:  Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 2 Apr 18.
Exhibit F:  Applicant’s Response, dated 17 Apr 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 regarding AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-01626.