RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2019-02916

XXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING REQUESTED: NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

His record contains false information regarding an Article 15.  He provides a copy of Standard Form 513, Medical Record dated 13 Aug 81, indicating he received an Article 15 in Apr 80 [sic] for being drunk.  However, his enlistment contract indicates he was sworn in on 30 Oct 80.  This proves he was not in the Air Force or any other branch of service on this date.  The incorrect facts affected his character of service.  Additionally, his father died in an automobile accident in 1983 and he was sent home for three days to mourn.  At that time, his mother was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and his wife was having an affair.  Instead of seeking counseling to deal with his losses, distress and depression, he made the wrong choice of drinking to numb his pain.  Since his discharge he has worked over 10 years in the automotive industry.  He was a professional semi-truck driver and had an exemplary record of performance and safety for the last 20 years.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a former Air Force airman basic.  

Per the applicant’s enlistment contract, on 30 Oct 80, he enlisted in the Air Force Reserve for six years in the pay grade of E-1.  On 9 Feb 81, the applicant entered active duty.

On 3 Feb 84, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force. 

The specific reason for these actions were:

a.  On or about 17 Apr 81, the applicant was drunk and disorderly on station and received an Article 15.

b.  On or about 12 Apr 83, he failed to go to his appointed place of duty and received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).

c.  On or about 1 Dec 83, he failed to go to his appointed place of duty and received a LOR.

d.  On or about 30 Dec 83, without authority, he was absent from his place of duty and remained so absent until on or about 5 Jan 84; and having been duly restricted to the limits of the base did, break said restriction, for which he received an Article 15.

On 14 Feb 84, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification, consulted counsel, and provided statements for consideration.

In a legal review dated in Feb 84, the staff judge advocate determined the applicant’s discharge package contained sufficient evidence of his misconduct to form an adequate basis for discharge and recommended he be discharged with a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

In Feb 84, the applicant’s administrative discharge was approved with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions).  Probation and Rehabilitation was denied.

On 1 Mar 84, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  His narrative reason for separation is “Misconduct-Pattern Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline.”

On 6 Jun 86, the Air Force Discharge Review Board denied his request to upgrade his discharge.

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

POST-SERVICE INFORMATION

On 3 Jul 19, the Board sent the applicant a standard request for post-service information.  This letter informed the applicant that a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) background check, available for under $20 from the FBI public website, would assist the Board in evaluating his case.  However, he has not replied.

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY

According to AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, incorporating changes through 8 June 2017, paragraph 1.18, the types of service characterization are as follows: 

Honorable.  The quality of the airman’s service generally has met Air Force standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty or when a member's service is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate. 

Under Honorable Conditions (General).  If an airman’s service has been honest and faithful, this characterization is warranted when significant negative aspects of the airman's conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the airman's military record.

Under Other than Honorable Conditions.  When basing the reason for separation on a pattern of behavior or one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of airmen.  The member must have an opportunity for a hearing by an administrative discharge board or request discharge in lieu of trail by court-martial.  Examples of such behavior, acts, or omissions include, but are not limited to:

•	The use of force or violence to produce serious bodily injury or death.

•	Abuse of a special position of trust.

•	Disregard by a superior of customary superior - subordinate relationships.

•	Acts or omissions that endanger the security of the United States. 

•	Acts or omissions that endanger the health and welfare of other members of the Air Force.

•	Deliberate acts or omissions that seriously endanger the health and safety of other persons.

•	Rape, sexual assault, aggravated sexual contact, abusive sexual contact, rape of a child, sexual assault of a child, sexual abuse of a child, forcible sodomy and attempts to commit these offenses.

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 C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Psychological Advisor finds insufficient evidence to support a change to the applicant’s records.  It has been several years since the applicant was discharged from the service so the Board could consider clemency.  An extensive review of the applicant’s military records found very little evidence to support his contention that he drank to cope with his depression/stressors.  It is clear in his records that he had a drinking problem as evidenced by his misconduct infractions and mental health evaluations, but there were no complaints or reports of any mental health concerns.  Although there were no records of any depression while in the Air Force, there is evidence that his depression and drinking issues actually began prior to service.  The applicant was previously enlisted in the Navy and the Naval Aptitude Board Report dated 2 Aug 78 stated, “You have been referred to the naval aptitude board by the recruit evaluation unit because of difficulty in adjusting to the stress of recruit training.”  The applicant did not report having depression, drinking issues, or other mental health conditions during his enlistment process into the Air Force.  Although his depression began prior to service, it is definitively possible that his father’s death, mother’s health, and relationship issues exacerbated his depressive symptoms; however, they do not appear to have been aggravated by military service beyond the natural progression of the disease.  There are no reports of any difficulties performing his military duties and no report of any military duties causing him to feel depressed.  His mental health evaluation report dated 20 Dec 83 reported the applicant claimed he started drinking when he was 18 years old and used to drink with his father.  He was reported to minimize his drinking to the evaluator.  In review of the case file, the liberal consideration policy would typically be applied due to the contention of a mental condition.  However, there is evidence that his depression and drinking issues existed prior to service and not aggravated by the military and therefore, liberal consideration is not required/applicable.  He had difficulties prior to service and was even administratively discharged from the Navy for depression prior to his enlistment into the Air Force.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 24 Sep 19, for comment (Exhibit E), but has received no response.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application is timely.  Given the requirement for passage of time, all clemency requests are technically untimely.  However, it would be illogical to deny a clemency application as untimely, since the Board typically looks for over 15 years of good conduct post-service.  Therefore, the Board declines to assert the three-year limitations period established by 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b).

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.  It appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the commander’s discretion.  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 evidence presented, and in the absence of post-service information, the Board finds no basis to do so.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s record.

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-2019-02916 in Executive Session on 20 May 20:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

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

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 22 May 19.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Applicant Notification of Liberal Consideration Policy, w/atchs dated 3 Jul 19.
Exhibit D:	Advisory opinion, Psychological Advisor, dated 20 Sep 19.
Exhibit E:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 24 Sep 19.

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.