ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-02875 

XXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: XXXXXXX
	
	HEARING REQUESTED: NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

The Board reconsider his request to have his general (under honorable conditions) discharge upgraded to honorable.

RESUME OF THE CASE

The applicant is a former airman (E-2) who received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge on 11 Jul 72, after serving 1 year, 2 months, and 19 days of active service.  

On 30 Aug 18 the Board considered and denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge to honorable, finding that, the applicant was not the victim of an injustice.  The Board concluded that the discharge appeared to be consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the commander’s discretion. The Board also determined the discharge was not unduly harsh or disproportionate to the offenses committed.  In the interest of justice, the Board considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, given the lack of post-service information, the Board found no basis to do so.  

For an accounting of the applicant’s original request and the rationale of the earlier decision, see the AFBCMR Letter and Record of Proceedings at Exhibit G.

On 4 Mar 20, the applicant again requested his discharge be upgraded to honorable.  He was diagnosed with a medical condition of “Passive Aggressive Personality Disorder” but did not receive the appropriate medical treatment.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit H.

POST-SERVICE INFORMATION

On 24 Nov 20, the Board sent the applicant the Consolidated Clarifying Guidance and a request for post-service information (Exhibit I), including a standard criminal history report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); however, he has not replied.

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY

On 3 Sep 14, the Secretary of Defense issued a memorandum providing guidance to the Military Department Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records as they carefully consider each petition regarding discharge upgrade requests by veterans claiming PTSD.  In addition, time limits to reconsider decisions will be liberally waived for applications covered by this guidance.

On 25 Aug 17, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD P&R) issued clarifying guidance to Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records considering requests by veterans for modification of their discharges due in whole or in part to mental health conditions [PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual assault, or sexual harassment].  Liberal consideration will be given to veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on the aforementioned conditions.

Currently, service members diagnosed with mental health conditions receive heightened screening to ensure the causal relationship of possible symptoms and discharge basis is fully considered, and characterization of service is appropriate.  Veterans discharged under prior procedures, or before verifiable diagnosis, may not have suffered an error because the separation authority was unaware of their condition or experience at the time of discharge.  However, when compared to similarly situated individuals under current standards, they may be the victim of injustice because commanders fully informed of such conditions and causal relationships today may opt for a less prejudicial discharge to ensure the veteran retains certain benefits, such as medical care.

Liberal consideration does not mandate an upgrade.  Relief may be appropriate, however, for minor misconduct commonly associated with the aforementioned mental health conditions and some significant misconduct sufficiently justified or outweighed by the facts and circumstances.

On 25 Jul 18, the USD P&R issued further guidance with the intent to set clear standards.

Copies of the Board guidance memoranda are at Exhibit I.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The AFBCMR Psychological Advisor recommends denying the application and finds insufficient evidence to support the applicant’s request for a change to his records.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence for a reconsideration for this petition but rather questioned why he did not receive any mental health treatment despite his diagnosis of Passive Aggressive Personality Disorder during service.  As reported in the previous mental health advisory, the applicant received two command referred mental health evaluations during service.  After being Absent Without Leave (AWOL) twice and receiving two Article 15s, the applicant was given a diagnosis of Passive Aggressive Personality Disorder and was recommended for administrative discharge.  It was unclear in the record, the offering of mental health treatment after his two evaluations; however, treatment is also voluntary and there is no requirement for a referral.  It was more likely than not he became aware of mental health treatment services during the evaluations as this was standard operating procedure and appeared he did not elect or seek treatment.  Secondly, there was a medical note dated 24 Nov 71 reporting the applicant “wants out of service.”  This decision appeared to have influenced him to go AWOL, as he made this statement almost after he had returned from his first AWOL from 15-21 Nov 71. The applicant clearly wanted out of the service and this may have motivated him to go AWOL twice and not be receptive to any assistance available to him to include therapy treatment.  Lastly, the applicant received a personality disorder diagnosis and individuals with this type of mental health disorder generally have unhealthy thoughts and behaviors that render them more inflexible or resistant to change.  The applicant was evasive with details of his personal problems during service, which may attribute to his pervasive behaviors and personality traits.  Thus, making it unlikely he would participate in treatment and provide additional support that his personality disorder diagnosis was appropriate and valid.  It appeared the applicant had poor coping skills derived from his personality traits that made him not amenable to any type of offered interventions or rehabilitative efforts, making him unsuitable for service.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit J.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 21 Dec 20 for comment (Exhibit K), but has received no response.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was timely filed.

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

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of the AFBCMR Psychological Advisor and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  In the interest of justice, the Board considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, in the absence of any evidence related to the applicant’s activities since leaving the service, the Board found no basis to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

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-2016-02875 in Executive Session on 8 Jan 21 and 25 Jan 21:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit G:	Record of Proceedings, w/ Exhibits A-F, dated 10 Sep 18.
Exhibit H:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 4 Mar 20.
Exhibit I:	Notification of Clarifying Guidance Clemency.
Exhibit J:	Advisory opinion, AFBCMR Psychological Advisor, dated 18 Dec 20. 
Exhibit K:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 21 Dec 20.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9., for Docket Number BC-2016-02875.