RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2019-04204
XXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING REQUESTED: NO
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
His discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) or honorable discharge.
APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS
He was not absent without leave (AWOL) as indicated in his records. He had a verbal arrangement with his noncommissioned officer in charge (NCOIC) to take his ill grandfather to his medical appointments. He was told his discharge would be changed to a general discharge after six months.

In support of request, the applicant provides two personal statements, letters of support, certificates of appreciation, volunteer information, medical documents, and various other documents to support his appeal for a clemency upgrade.
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant is a former Air Force airman basic (E-1).
On 1 October 1970, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force for a period of four years. His Air Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) was IV 17. His Airman Qualification Exam (AQE) scores were Mechanical-40, Administration-75, General-20, Electronic-20.

On 20 September 1972, the applicant’s commander recommended he be discharged from the Air Force, under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation of Unsuitability, Misconduct, Personal Abuse of Drugs, Resignation or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service.
The following are specific reasons for the action:
a.	On or about 1 September 1971, without authority, the applicant absented himself from his place of duty and remained absent until on or about 4 September 1971. For this misconduct, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under an Article 15, Uniform of Military Justice (UCMJ).

b.	On or about 27 March 1972, without authority, the applicant absented himself from his place of duty and remained absent until on or about 29 March 1972. For this misconduct, he received NJP under Article 15, UCMJ. 

c.	On or about 4 May 1972, without authority, the applicant failed to go at the time prescribed to his place of duty. For this misconduct, he received NJP under Article 15, UCMJ.

d.	On or about 7 June 1972, without authority, the applicant absented himself from his place of duty and remained absent until on or about 12 June 1972. For this misconduct, he received NJP under Article 15, UCMJ.
On 20 September 1972, the applicant was advised on his options for rehabilitation and on that same date, he elected not to be considered for rehabilitation.

On 1 November 1972, the applicant withdrew his declination for an administrative discharge board and rehabilitation.

On 13 November 1972, the notification action was amended to include that the applicant was   45 minutes late for duty on 6 November 1972 and failed to go to his place of duty on 7 November and 8 November 1972. On that same date the applicant acknowledged receipt of the supplemental notification, the discharge action was found legally sufficient and the discharge authority approved the recommendation.

On 13 November 1972, the applicant received a UOTHC discharge and was credited with 2 years, 1 month and 4 days of active duty service.

On 29 April 1973 and 17 June 1983, the applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) for a discharge upgrade. The AFDRB considered and denied the applicant’s appeals.
For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B.
POST-SERVICE INFORMATION
On 9 September 2019, the Board sent the applicant a request for post-service information (Exhibit C.) The applicant provided a copy of a report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) dated 11 October 2019. According to the report, the applicant was arrested on 21 July 1976 for stealing over $50. On 20 December 1976, he was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon, possession of a controlled substance, and a traffic offense and was found not guilty on 25 January 1977. The applicant’s last arrest was on 15 July 2002 for theft.
The entire FBI report can be found at Exhibit D.
APPLICABLE GUIDANCE
On 3 September 2014, 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 under this guidance.

On 25 August 2017, 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 casual 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 casual 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 Under Secretary of Defense issued supplemental guidance (Wilke Memo) to military corrections boards in determining whether relief is warranted based on equity, injustice, or clemency. These standards authorize the board to grant relief in order to ensure fundamental fairness. Clemency refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence and is a part of the broad authority Boards have to ensure fundamental fairness. This guidance applies to more than clemency from sentencing in a court-martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds. This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority. Each case will be assessed on its own merits. The relative weight of each principle and whether the principle supports relief in a particular case, are within the sound discretion of each Board. In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, an injustice, or clemency grounds, the Board should refer to the supplemental guidance, paragraphs 6 and 7.
The entire guidance can be found at Exhibit B.
According to AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, 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.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION
The AFBCMR Psychological Advisor recommends granting the application noting the evidence was sufficient to support the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge based on liberal consideration along with changing the applicant’s narrative reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority.

The Psychological Advisor found the applicant’s apparent and repeated difficulties and misconduct during his time in service were attributed to his lower intellectual functioning ability. The applicant’s records revealed he entered military service under the Project 100,000 program. This program was enacted in October 1966 by the Department of Defense (DoD) to accept a portion of men who were previously disqualified for military service due to not meeting mental standards or physical defects that were correctable within a short period of time. Specifically for mental standards, the policy stated mental test scores and educational requirements were lowered, as low as scoring in the 10th percentile on the Armed Forces Qualification Test that would now be deemed acceptable to enter the service. Under this policy, the aim was to allow up to 100,000 men to enter the service each year that were previously disqualified due to mental or physical standards. The applicant did not have any known or recorded physical defects in service; however, there was evidence he had intellectual functioning impairments. The applicant received a mental health evaluation during service and the results reported on 19 June 1972 stated, “History reveals a consistent problem in learning situations, such as school and OJT [on the job training], indicating an impoverished intellectual functioning, and difficulty to progress.” At the time, the evaluator attributed the applicant’s problems to a character and behavior disorder but the Psychological Advisor disagrees with the evaluator’s assessment. The applicant’s difficulties in the military were not the result of a character or behavior disorder (or personality disorder) as suggested but rather to his impoverished intellectual functioning that was identified by the very same evaluator. There are significant differences between the two conditions. While both conditions are considered unsuiting for military service and are inherent conditions/traits within the individual, individuals with personality disorders have impairments in interpersonal functioning whereas individuals with lower intellectual functioning have impairments in social activities, academics, and communication. These latter impairments appear to better explain the applicant’s functioning during service.

Individuals with intellectual functioning impairments commonly have difficulties comprehending information received whether verbally, visually or by other mode of sensory perceptions. This may often lead to learning and academic difficulties as well to include understanding instructions, not being able to follow rules, completing tasks, failing exams, etc. The applicant was noted to have these difficulties in service as the military evaluator acknowledged that his history of problems with learning, academic and on the job training and impoverished intellectual functioning had made it difficult for him to progress. The applicant’s pattern of misconduct was ascertained to be the same, repeated behaviors that he was unable to correct despite receiving numerous counseling, reprimands and non-judicial punishments from his leadership. This demonstrated that he was unable to appreciate or understand the instructions and consequences that were given to him and thus, resulted in his repeated cycle of misconduct. It appeared the applicant did not have the intellectual ability to comprehend his inappropriate behaviors in order to rectify them. Furthermore, the applicant’s explanation given during the snapshot in time of service and consistently post service regarding his AWOL, indicated a fixation on a situation – assisting his ailing grandfather, as the root cause of his AWOL that he repeatedly denied doing. Even though this was one of the reasons for his misconduct, he was unable to understand that he had engaged in other unacceptable behaviors and misconduct. It is noteworthy to mention the applicant was actually not given a humanitarian reassignment to care for his grandfather as he asserted but records indicated he was granted permissive reassignment by his own expense. These examples showed he had cognitive inflexibility that is commonly seen in individuals with limitations in intellectual functioning and abilities.

Another piece of evidence that the applicant had intellectual functioning impairments versus a character and behavior disorder is the manner in which he was able to enter into the military: Project 100,000. As summarized, this policy permitted previously disqualifying mental standards specifically outlined as low test scores and educational standards to allow entry. This policy did not include conditions of character and behavior disorders/personality disorders and therefore, it was likely he was able to enter service under the revised mental standards. Although the applicant was appropriately admitted into the military under the policy at the time, his pre-existing intellectual functioning impairments caused him to have difficulties adapting and adhering to military standards, environment, rules, customs and procedures. Therefore, his pre-existing condition would continue to manifest itself as a disqualifying condition for service leading to his discharge from service.
The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit E.
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION
The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 24 September 2020, for comment (Exhibit F), and the applicant replied on 21 October 2020. In his response, the applicant states whatever the Board decides is what he will have to live with. There is too much going on today and life is to short. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit G.
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 thoroughly reviewing all exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion the applicant is the victim of an injustice. The Board notes the applicant enlisted under Project 100,000, a program initiated by the Department of Defense in 1966 to annually induct and train recruits who normally would not qualify for military service. The Board also notes that during the applicant’s short term of service, he was diagnosed with a mental health condition and the Psychological Advisor opines that there was a definite probability the applicant was unable to appreciate or understand the instructions and consequences that were given to him and thus, resulted in his repeated cycle of misconduct. It appeared the applicant did not have the intellectual ability to comprehend his inappropriate behaviors in order to rectify them. Although the applicant's intellectual impairment does not excuse his misconduct, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant’s mental health diagnosis coupled with being placed in a position of responsibility beyond his intellectual capability is sufficient to warrant liberal consideration. Therefore, the Board believes the interest of justice can best be served by upgrading his discharge to general (under honorable conditions) and changing his narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority. The Board considered upgrading the applicant’s discharge to honorable; however, the Board does not believe that an upgrade to fully honorable is warranted. Accordingly, the Board recommends his records be corrected to the extent indicated below.
RECOMMENDATION
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show on 13 November 1972, he was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions), and a separation code and narrative reason for separation of JFF (Secretarial Authority).
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-2019-04204 in Executive Session on 19 November 2020:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member
All members voted to correct the record. The panel considered the following: Exhibit A: Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 30 May 2019.
Exhibit B: Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records. Exhibit C: Letter, SAF/MRBC, w/atch, dated 9 September 2019.
Exhibit D: FBI Investigative Report, dated 11 October 2019.
Exhibit E: Advisory, AFBCMR Psychological Advisor, 19 August 2020 Exhibit F: Letter, SAF/MRBC, 24 September 2020.
Exhibit G: Letter, Applicant, dated 21 October 2020
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.