RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2020-00999

XXXX X. XXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE
	
	HEARING REQUESTED:  NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

Upgrade his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTION

When his commander recommended his discharge for "minor disciplinary infractions," he not only accepted responsibility for his actions, but also attempted to explain ongoing mental/psychological struggles due to trauma while in the line of duty.  He stated that he was “physically and mentally exhausted," and even though he sought mental health (MH) treatment for his symptoms, his leadership never considered this as it impeded the effective execution of his duties.  He has since been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a former Air Force airman basic (E-1).  

On 16 Oct 97, the applicant’s commander notified him of his intent to impose nonjudicial punishment for sleeping while posted as an entry control point sentinel.

On 23 Oct 97, the applicant accepted nonjudicial proceedings and made a written statement and oral presentation.  

On 7 Nov 97, as punishment, he received a suspended reduction in grade to airman (E-2), forfeiture of $100 pay per month for 2 months, and 15 days of extra duty.

On 23 Feb 98, the applicant was referred to MH services for complaints of increasing stress, anxiety, difficulties dealing with coworkers and family, and increased anger on the job and at home.  After an initial evaluation at the life skills center/MH clinic on 25 Feb 98, he attended four individual psychotherapy and three stress management and relaxation sessions from 15-30 Mar 98.

On 20 Mar 98, the applicant’s commander notified him of his intent to impose nonjudicial punishment for dereliction of duties in that he willfully failed to maintain appropriate security by using a security badge clip to mechanically circumvent a security system.

On 24 Mar 98, the applicant accepted nonjudicial proceedings and made a written statement, but did not request a personal appearance.

On 2 Apr 98, as punishment, the applicant received a reduction in grade to airman basic (E-1), and 20 days extra duty.

On 23 Apr 98, the applicant’s commander recommended the applicant be discharged from the Air Force, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for the two aforementioned Articles 15 and for receiving a letter of reprimand for failure to go to his appointed place of duty on or about 11 Jul 97. 

On 4 May 98, the discharge action was found legally sufficient, and the discharge authority approved the recommendation on 7 May 98.

On 13 May 98, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. 

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

On 3 Sep 14, the Secretary of Defense issued a memorandum providing guidance to the Military Department Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) 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 BCM/NRs 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.

On 25 Jul 18, the USD P&R issued further guidance to the Board with the intent to provide clear standards in determining whether relief is warranted on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency.  The guidance applies to more than clemency from sentencing in a court-martial; it also applies to any correction, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice (Exhibit C).

POST-SERVICE INFORMATION

On 27 Mar 20, the Board sent the applicant a request for post-service information, including a standard criminal history report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which the applicant provided on 14 Apr 20 (Exhibit D).  According to the report, he has had no arrests since discharge.
 
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.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The AFBCMR Psychological Advisor finds some evidence to support the applicant’s request for a change to his records.  During MH treatment sessions from 25 Feb 98 through 30 Mar 98, the applicant reported he had multiple stressors and was given a diagnosis/condition of “occupational problem.”  He also contended that he had experienced trauma in service, but did not provide any clarifying information regarding the nature of the trauma, when it occurred, and exactly how his MH symptoms mitigated his misconduct.  There was no evidence or documentation of any trauma in his service treatment records and while he received a Veterans Administration disability rating for service connected PTSD on 17 Dec 19, 21 years post-discharge, he provided no explanation for the basis of this diagnosis and how it was service connected.  Although there was no evidence of trauma during time of service, there was evidence of other psychological and emotional distress experienced by the applicant, and therefore, liberal consideration is applied to the applicant’s request.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 11 Jun 20 for comment (Exhibit F), 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.  While the Board notes the AFBCMR Psychological Advisor found evidence that the applicant’s mental health condition mitigated some of his misconduct, therefore warranting a review under liberal consideration, the Board finds that his condition did not mitigate the misconduct that led to his discharge.  Considering this, it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the commander’s discretion.  Additionally, 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.  While the Board notes the applicant provided an FBI report showing no arrests, the Board also notes the applicant did not provide any other post-service documents as outline in the clemency bulletin sent on 27 Mar 20, such as contributions to the community, character references, or educational accomplishments.  Given the evidence presented, and in the absence of post-service information, the Board finds no basis to do so.  However, should the applicant provide evidence of his post-service accomplishments, the Board may reconsider his request.  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-2020-00999 in Executive Session on 24 Sep 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 23 Dec 19.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Letter, SAF/MRBC, w/atchs, 27 Mar 20.
Exhibit D:	Applicant’s response, dated 14 Apr 20.
Exhibit E:  Advisory opinion, SAF/MRBC Psychological Advisor, dated 27 Apr 20.
Exhibit F:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 11 Jun 20.

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.