RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00060
			
			COUNSEL:  None

			HEARING DESIRED:  YES
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable, type of separation be changed to retirement, the narrative reason changed to “Quality Force Reduction”, the reentry code (RE) be changed to “1A”, and he be promoted to the grade of chief master sergeant (E-9).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His unit commander misconstrued his authority under “The Quality Force Program.”  He believes his pay grade should be E-9, command chief master sergeant retired.

Applicant's complete submission with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 18 June 1979 for a period of 4 years and was progressively promoted to the grade of master sergeant. The applicant was discharged from the Air Force on 18 December 1990 under the provisions of AFM 39-12 (Request for Discharge in lieu of Court-Martial) and received an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.  He also had prior active service with the United States Army from 20 December 1973 to 12 December 1977.  He served 15 years, 5 months and 24 day total active military service.

On 16 November 1990, the applicant’s commander preferred Court-Martial charges against him.  In February 1990, with the intent to deceive, he made an official false statement that he arrived at the scene of an unannounced alarm activation, whereas he did not respond to the alarm at all; on divers occasions between    20 December 1989 and 15 September 1990 he was charged with acts of maltreating his subordinates who were subject to his orders and making offensive comments of a sexual nature during open ranks to his female subordinates; on divers occasions between     1 June 1989 and 15 September 1990, used government vehicles for personal use and had his subordinates perform personal errands; derelict in the performance of his duties by failing to remain awake and alert while on duty and was unavailable to perform normal flight duties; and on divers occasions between 1 October 1988 and 31 December 1989, committed adultery.  He underwent a command-directed mental health evaluation in September 1990 and was found to be mentally competent.  After consulting with military defense counsel, applicant submitted a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial on 4 December 1990.  The base legal office reviewed the case and found it to be legally sufficient to support the discharge and recommended acceptance of the request for discharge with an under than honorable conditions discharge.  Additionally, his commander recommended acceptance of his request with a UOTHC discharge.  The Discharge Authority approved the discharge and ordered a UOTHC discharge on 14 December 1990.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and states based upon the documentation in the file the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  Additionally, he provided no facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.  Accordingly, they recommend his records remain the same and his request be denied.  He has not filed a timely request.

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRRP recommended denial and states that there were no injustices or irregularities that occurred with applicant’s discharge processing.  At the time of his discharge, there were no provisions of law that allowed for retirement with less than 20 years of active service.  Even if there had been, applicant would have been ineligible to apply based on the fact he was pending separation in lieu of court-martial.

Section 8914, Title 10, United State Code, provides that an enlisted member must have 20 years of total active federal military service (TAFMS) to be eligible to voluntarily retire.  Applicant did not have 20 years of service at the time of his discharge, as evidenced by his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

The Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) was enacted into law by the FY93 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to provide the Secretary of Defense a temporary additional force management tool with which to affect the drawdown of military forces.  However, authority to use this provision of law was not given to the Air Force by the Department of Defense (DoD) until 12 March 1993.

Applicant is not eligible to be retired under the 15-year retirement program because it was not enacted into law until FY93 by the NDAA.  Additionally, based on the fact applicant was pending separation action in lieu of court-martial, he would not have been eligible to apply for retirement under the 15-year retirement program.

AFPC/DPPRRP complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant’s spouse reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated that the discharge processing was probably handled properly, however, there has been a grave injustice committed here.

After many years of roller coaster behavior, the applicant was diagnosed with Bipolar 1 disorder.  The reports indicate that the applicant has had this condition since his early thirties.  Typically, it started out as one manic episode per year followed by extreme depression, without proper medication these episodes eventually get worse.  She feels that if the applicant were properly diagnosed in the mid eighties when this disease began to manifest itself, the applicant could have been placed on the proper medications and retired without events from the United States Air Force and/or been medically discharged.  The applicant underwent a complete psychological evaluation in 1986 by the request of Major Grady in Ankara Turkey after the applicant was involved in a manic episode where he struck an officer.  According to his medical records, his psychological evaluation was poor.  This finding should have been followed up accordingly.  It wasn’t.  From hyper sexual comments and behavior, to imagining alarm activation’s and finally not being able to stay awake from sheer emotional and physical exhaustion that this condition leaves one in.  Once again, the applicant was given a psychological evaluation in December of 1990 by the United States Air Force and was found competent.

The actions, which led the applicant to be discharged, were clearly part of a disorder that the Air Force knew he had or was negligent in determining that he had.  We contend that if the Air Force was dishonorable to the applicant, a man who has served his country from the age of seventeen, and ask that his discharge be upgraded to honorable and his discharge changed to retirement based on the dates of his service.  She has also submitted a psychiatric emergency service discharge information/referral sheet.

Applicant’s spouse's complete response with attachment, is at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________

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, the Board excused the failure to timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his discharge, type of separation, narrative reason, and reentry code should be changed or that he should be promoted to the grade of chief master sergeant.  His contentions are duly noted; however, evidence has not been presented to show that actions taken to discharge him were improper or contrary to the provisions of the directive under which it was effected, or that the characterization of his service was not based on the circumstances, which existed at the time and resulted from his own misconduct.  We noted the applicant's contention that a bi-polar medical condition was the cause for his pattern of misconduct.  However, he has failed to provide sufficient medical documentation substantiating that this condition contributed to his pattern of misconduct prior to his discharged from the Air Force.  If he can furnish such documentation, we are willing to reconsider his application.  In view of the above, we have no basis exists to grant favorable action on his request.

4.	The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of a 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 BC-2003-00060 in Executive Session on 6 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 28 Dec 02.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 27 Jan 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 21 Feb 03
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Feb 03.
	Exhibit F.	Applicant’s Spouse Response, undated.