RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04128 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His discharge was unjust due to his Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). His personality and demeanor change was caused by his TBI. Prior to his TBI he had a sterling record and only one sick call visit. After his TBI, he had numerous sick call visits about TBI related conditions including headaches, stress, alcohol related incidents, and oversleeping, all compounded by personal issues. In support of his request the applicant provides a personal statement discussing events that occurred after he entered the Air Force, Standard Forms 600, Chronological Record of Medical Care; DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty and various other documents associated with his request. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 27 Apr 77, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 12 Apr 78, after a psychiatric evaluation, the Mental Health Services diagnosed the applicant with Transient Situational Disturbance, manifested by physically violent acts. It was recommended he be given a further trial of duty; and, if after a reasonable trial, he is unable to adjust, that action be taken to separate him from the service under the appropriate administrative regulation. On 8 Mar 79, the applicant requested a Hardship Discharge in accordance with (IAW) AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen. On 26 Mar 79, the applicant was notified that his request for a Hardship Discharge was disapproved. The commander noted there was no indication the applicant had made every reasonable attempt to remedy his situation. On 20 Apr 79, the 2849th Air Base Group commander (2849 ABG/CC) disapproved the applicant’s request. The commander stated that the applicant submitted a supplement to his original request for a hardship discharge which also was disapproved. However, his supplement contained no substantial information to support his original application other than an emotional appeal. By undated letter, the applicant’s squadron section commander notified him of administrative discharge action for apathy and defective attitude. For a full list of the offenses, please see the commander’s notification letter at Exhibit B. On 11 May 79, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification On 5 Jun 79, after consulting with counsel, he requested a conditional waiver of his entitlement to an administrative discharge board hearing on the condition that his discharge be characterized as general (under honorable conditions). On 6 Jun 79, the Staff Judge Advocate found the case file legally sufficient and recommended the applicant receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without the offer of probation or rehabilitation. On 12 Jun 79, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s request for a conditional waiver. He was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions) in the grade of airman. He was credited with 2 years, 1 month and 16 days of active duty service. _________________________________________________________________ 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; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority. The applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the characterization of the service was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the characterization of applicant’s discharge based on clemency; however, after considering his overall record of service, the numerous infractions which led to his administrative separation and lack of post-service documentation, we are not persuaded that an upgrade is warranted. Should the applicant provide evidence pertaining to his post-service activities, we would be willing to reconsider his request. In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2012-04128 in Executive Session on 30 May 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Aug 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.