RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01102 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He believes the drugs administered to him during his enlistment caused grave mental illness and a lapse in good judgment. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides extracts from his service medical records. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force, on 8 Feb 78 for a period of four years. Subsequent to his reenlistment, on 2 Nov 87, the squadron commander notified him of administrative discharge board action for misconduct. The specific reasons were: a. On or about 22 Dec 87, he with a co-conspirator, faked a home invasion wherein his girlfriend was raped, sodomized, and threatened with a firearm. b. He was subsequently indicted under the Missouri criminal statutes for rape, sodomy, armed criminal action, and tampering with a victim. c. On or about 9 Mar 90, he entered a negotiated plea of guilty to rape and tampering in exchange for a prosecution recommendation of 15 years for rape and 7 years for tampering. After consulting with counsel and having been advised of his rights, the applicant waived his right to an administrative discharge board (ADB). The Numbered Air Force/base staff judge advocate found the case file legally sufficient and recommended an UOTHC discharge. The discharge authority approved the UOTHC discharge, without probation or rehabilitation. The applicant was discharged, on 7 Jun 90, by reason of misconduct – civilian conviction, with service characterized as under other than honorable conditions. He was credited with 12 years, 1 month, and 15 days of active duty service. On 23 Jan 96, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his UOTHC discharge to honorable. They concluded the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process (see AFDRB Hearing Record at Exhibit B). ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The applicant requests an upgrade from an UOTHC to an Under Honorable Conditions (General) discharge based on the assertion that "the drugs administered during my enlistment caused grave mental illness and a lapse of good judgment." In reviewing the applicant's claim, there must be evidence that an error or injustice occurred with the characterization of the involuntary separation due to a medical reason. The reviewer opines that there is no medical evidence that either medication used to treat the sarcoidosis or histoplasmosis caused or contributed to the criminal behavior which resulted in the UOTHC discharge. Although no performance records or profile documents were included for the review, there was no indication that any significant behavior or performance issues were evident up to the period of the criminal offenses which includes nearly four years prior to the criminal offenses. The reviewer opines that claims of criminal behavior and "grave mental illness" was due to the medical therapy he received is scientifically and medically unsubstantiated by the records submitted for review. Furthermore, there is no evidence of any mental health conditions or behavioral abnormalities prior to the criminal offenses which would necessitate a mental health evaluation. While the medical reviewer concedes that prolonged use of prednisone for treatment of sarcoidosis may be associated with potential adverse effects, there is no clear evidence that the applicant's criminal behavior was due to the medication as evidenced by the lack of any performance deficiencies or complaints of adverse effects over the course of treatment. Also, there were no narrative entries by the health care providers of any mental or physical adverse effects from the medication prescribed. In summary, the medical reviewer has identified insufficient medical justification to support the applicant's claim of "grave mental illness" or lapses in judgment resulting from the medication he received for treatment of his health condition. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response to the Air Force evaluation, the applicant summarized his prescribed medication and provided documentation about the affects of the medications. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse 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 to include his response to the Air Force evaluation; however, we note the applicant’s case has undergone an exhaustive review by the BCMR Medical Consultant and we did not find the evidence provided, sufficient to overcome his assessment of the case. Therefore, we agree with the Medical Consultant’s recommendation and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice. In view of the above and 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-2011-01102 in Executive Session on 3 November 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Mar 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 21 Sep 11. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Oct 11. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs. Panel Chair