ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02151 and
		               86-02738
	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded and he be medically discharged.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

At the age of 18, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of private on 6 January 1950, for a period of four years.

On 7 December 1950, a summary court-martial found the applicant guilty of violating Article 96 (General Article) of the Articles of War.  Specifically, for being drunk in public on 17 November 1950.  The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $25.00 and 30 days of hard labor.

On 26 May 1952, a summary court-martial found the applicant guilty of violating Article 134 (General Article) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  Specifically, for being drunk in public on 11 May 1952.  The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $35.00 and 45 days of hard labor.

On 27 April 1953, a summary court-martial found the applicant guilty of violating Article 86 (Absence without Leave (AWOL)), UCMJ.  Specifically, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty on 23 April 1953.  The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $30.00 and 30 days of hard labor.

The applicant received a psychiatric evaluation on 19 June 1953 and was found to have a character disorder (i.e., anti-social personality with immaturity features), rather than a mental disease.

A Board of Officers convened on 29 July 1953, to determine the applicant’s fitness for retention in the Air Force, and the applicant appeared with counsel.  The board found that the applicant gave evidence of habits, other than those indicating discharge for physical or mental conditions as provided for in AFR 35-49, which rendered his retention in the service undesirable and applicant unfit for further military service.  The board recommended he be discharged because of unfitness with service characterized as undesirable.

The applicant suffered a grand mal epileptic seizure in August 1953, and was hospitalized at Travis AFB, California for a period of two months.

The applicant received a separation physical on 16 October 1953, and was found medically qualified for discharge.

On 29 October 1953, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (Unfitness), with service characterized as Undesirable.  He completed 3 years, 6 months, and 23 days of active service, with 90 days of lost time.

On 19 February 1987, the Board considered applicant’s request that his undesirable discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions).  The Board found the application was not timely filed, and that it would not be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness.  Accordingly, the Board denied the application on the basis of timeliness.  A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is at Exhibit G.

In an application, dated 24 July 2001, the applicant requested reconsideration of his appeal and provided additional evidence.  The applicant contends that at the time of his discharge, he was suffering from epilepsy, grand mal, and should have been medically discharged. Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that lacking pertinent information regarding the applicant’s history of epilepsy, they must assume on the presumption of regularity that the two-month hospitalization at Travis AFB prior to his discharge provided a thorough evaluation of his condition and concluded that he did not have a medical condition which would require disability consideration.  There are no post-service records of care for epilepsy to know whether this has been a continuing problem.  If a medical condition was found prior to his separation that would have led to disability consideration, the discharge may have been considered as a dual-action process, and the applicant may have received an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge in lieu of a medical disability discharge because of his long record of disciplinary infractions and courts-martial actions.

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit I.

AFPC/DPPD recommends the application be denied.  AFPC/DPPD states, in part, that the applicant has not submitted any documentation to show that he was unfit due to a physical disability at the time of his separation.  A medical examination was completed on the applicant prior to his separation, and no complications or sequelae were evident following his seizure and he was medically qualified for discharge.  The applicant’s court-martial records indicate that a psychiatric evaluation showed no evidence of psychiatric disease, and the applicant’s behavior and mental status were considered that of a character disorder, and not a mental disease.  At that time, he was diagnosed to possess an anti-social personality with immature features.  There are no errors or irregularities regarding his discharge that would justify a change to his military records.

The AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit J.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 12 October 2001 for review and response with 30 days.  However, as of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that relief should be granted.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the offices of the Air Force.  The offices of primary responsibility have adequately addressed applicant’s contentions and we agree with their opinions and recommendations.  We, therefore, adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Hence, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable 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 Docket Number 01-02151 in Executive Session on 6 March 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

	            Panel Chair
	            Member
	            Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit G.  Record of Proceedings, w/atchs.
	Exhibit H.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Jul 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 6 Sep 01.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 4 Oct 01.
	Exhibit K.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 12 Oct 01