RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03305
				INDEX CODE:  110.00
	APPLICANT  	COUNSEL:  None

	SSN		HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was suffering from depression and this caused his misconduct.  He further contends he was not properly diagnosed or treated while on active duty.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 3 March 1980, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman first class for a period of six (6) years.

During his time on active duty, the applicant was treated for a variety of medical conditions which are addressed by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant (Exhibit C).

On 21 July 1986, the applicant's commander recommended he be discharged from the Air Force for conduct prejudicial to good conduct and discipline in accordance with AFR 39-10, under the provisions of paragraph 5-47B.

The commander stated the following reasons for the proposed discharge:

	a.  On 14 January 1986, the applicant  received an Article 15 for being drunk and disorderly on 1 January 1986, for this infraction he received a reduction in grade and forfeiture of $200 a month for one month.  The execution of the grade reduction was suspended and would be remitted without further action if not vacated before 12 July 1986.

	b.  He received another Article 15 on 3 June 1986 for being absent from his appointed place of duty from 21-23 May 1986, for this infraction he received a reduction in grade and forfeiture of $200 a month for two months.  The portion of the punishment relating to the forfeiture was suspended and would be remitted without further action if not vacated before 1 December 1986.  His new date of rank (DOR) as sergeant was 3 June 1986.

	c.  The applicant received an Article 15 on 26 June 1986 for being absent from his appointed place of duty from 16-18 June 1986 and from 18-23 June 1986, for this infraction he received a reduction in grade to airman and restriction to the base for a period of 60 consecutive days.

The commander advised applicant of his right to consult legal counsel; present his case to an administrative discharge board; be represented by legal counsel at a board hearing; submit statements in his own behalf in addition to, or in lieu of, the board hearing; or waive the above rights after consulting with counsel.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge that the applicant was repeatedly counseled and issued several forms of administrative actions in an effort to bring his (applicant’s) behavior in compliance to Air Force standards.  The commander further recommended the applicant be discharged without probation and rehabilitation (P and R).

On 21 July 1986, after consulting with counsel, applicant offered a conditional waiver to an administrative discharge board contingent on his receiving a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  On 28 July 1986, he submitted a personal statement.

A legal review was conducted on 21 July 1986 in which the staff judge advocate recommended the applicant’s waiver be accepted and he be separated from the Air Force with a general discharge.

On 25 August 1986, the discharge authority ordered the applicant discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

Applicant was discharged on 11 September 1986, in the grade of airman with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, in accordance with AFR 39-10 (Misconduct - Pattern of Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline).  He served a total of six years, six months and nine days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, states the applicant contends that his depression and use of medication caused his misconduct.  The applicant was initially diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder (situationally based symptoms of depressed mood); however, at this time he was undergoing disciplinary action.  The applicant was evaluated by Mental Health.  The evaluation revealed the applicant did not have any mental health issues that would prevent him from knowing right from wrong or that he could not control his behavior or understand the consequences of his actions.  In fact, the evaluation concluded the applicant was not depressed at the time of the evaluation.  There is no clear evidence the applicant was AWOL due his medication.  Even if the applicant had been diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder the commander has the option to administratively discharge the applicant for unsuitability, or in this case, misconduct.  The Medical Consultant further states there was no mental health diagnosis made following the formal evaluation and therefore, the discharge for misconduct was accomplished and appropriate.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not submitted any evidence nor identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of his discharge.  Based upon the documentation in the applicant's file, they believe his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulations of that time.  Also, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  Also, he did not provide any facts to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.  Based on the information and evidence provided they recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D).  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 14 February 2003, for review and response.  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 of 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 agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale 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.  The applicant contends that he was suffering from depression and this caused his misconduct.  He further contends that he was not properly diagnosed.  We note that after the applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) in June 1986, his commander referred him for a mental evaluation.  The mental health evaluation revealed the applicant did not have any mental health issues that would prevent him from distinguishing between right and wrong or that he could not control his behavior or understand the consequences of his actions.  The mental health evaluation further revealed the applicant was not depressed at the time of the evaluation.  Therefore, based on the documentation in the applicant's records, it appears that the processing of the discharge and the characterization of the discharge were appropriate and accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy.  The applicant has not established to our satisfaction that he has been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2002-03305 in Executive Session on 24 April 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Oct 02.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 27 Dec 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 Feb 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 03.