RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01110 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. 2. His narrative reason for separation be change from misconduct (serious offense) to service connected disability or left blank. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In 2003, he was granted temporary medical retirement. Starting in 2004, his squadron placed him on administrative hold so that he could not be medically retired. In 2006, he was court- martialed. The military judge ordered that he be returned to active duty and suggested he be medically retired. His commander decided to discharge him for misconduct and that simply was not true. He has medical records dating back to 2003 showing that he was medically disabled and his retirement was underway for years prior to his court-martial. He has service connected disabilities and is unable to work. In order to receive compensation for his disabilities, his discharge must be upgraded. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his medical profile, a copy of the findings of the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB), a copy of his final diagnosis and a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17 July 2001. On 12 April 2006, pursuant to a special court-martial (SPCM), he was convicted of having intercourse with women, not his wife and indecent assault. As a result of the SPCM, he was sentenced to 2 months confinement, reduction to the grade of E-1 and forfeiture of $500 pay per month for two months. On 1 June 2006, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to discharge him from the Air Force for commission of a serious offense. On 1 June 2006, the applicant acknowledged his commander’s intent, his right to consult counsel and to submit statements on his behalf. The applicant submitted a statement on 9 June 2006. On 16 June 2006, the case was found legally sufficient. On 28 June 2006, the commander directed the applicant be discharged for commission of a serious offense and separated with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. Pursuant to AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, the case was forwarded to the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) for dual processing. On 4 May 2007, the applicant was found unfit for duty by the Informal Physical Evaluation Board for Headaches, Nonepileptic Paroxysmal Spells and Episodic Vertigo. The IPEB recommended he be temporarily retired with a disability rating of 40 percent. On 24 May 2007, Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council directed the action under AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for Separation or Retirement, be terminated and the applicant’s discharge under AFI 36-3208, be approved. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states that Airmen are subject to discharge for commission of serious offenses if the specific circumstance merits separation. The circumstances in the applicant’s case warranted discharge. The discharge was consistent with procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant urges the Board to consider the facts provided. In 2004, he was found unfit for military duty and as a result, he was temporarily medically retired. His squadron discharged him and put misconduct on his DD Form 214 even though he was never counseled for any other incident since his court-martial. He has provided several documents as evidence and submitted several facts of injustice and errors that occurred that warrants a change in his discharge and narrative reason for separation. The entire discharge process was unjust to him and his family has suffered greatly. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ 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 an error or injustice. After careful consideration of the applicant’s request and the evidence presented, we are not persuaded that he was improperly discharged and that the approved service characterization should be upgraded. It appears that responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and the applicant has not provided persuasive evidence demonstrating that pertinent regulations were violated; he was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge or that his superiors abused their discretionary authority. We therefore agree with the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Accordingly, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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-2011-01110 in Executive Session on 20 October 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Mar 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 3 Jun 11. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jun 11. Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 20 Jun 11, w/atchs. Panel Chair