RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00141
		INDEX CODES:  108.00, 121.02,
                                               123.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect that he is entitled to payment for lost time from 24 Nov 70 to 4 Feb 71 and six (6) days of forfeited accrued leave.

By amendment, his administrative discharge be changed to a medical discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The upgrading of his under other than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge to general warrants payment for his lost time and forfeited accrued leave.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided copies of his separation documents and a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Available military personnel records indicate that the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 6 Jul 70 for a period of four years.

On 4 Dec 70, the applicant was convicted by Special Court-Martial of failure to go, disrespectful in language to a noncommissioned officer (NCO), assaulting an NCO by lunging at him, and being absent without leave (AWOL).  The approved sentence included forfeiture of $50.00 per month for six (6) months and confinement at hard labor for 90 days.

On 5 Mar 71, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for failure to obey a lawful order to report to his duty section.  

On 8 Mar 71, he requested a discharge for the good of the service.  

On 11 Mar 71, the commander recommended that the applicant's request for discharge be approved and that he be furnished an undesirable discharge.  

On 31 Mar 71, the discharge authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 2 Apr 71 under the provisions of AFM 39-12 with an undesirable discharge.  He was credited with 6 months, and 11 days of active service, with 76 days of lost time.

On 6 Jun 77, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) upgraded the applicant’s undesirable discharge to general (under honorable conditions).

On 31 Mar 78, the AFDRB denied the applicant’s request that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPW provided a technical advisory to AFPC/DPPRS indicating they have determined that the applicant was charged with a total of 73 days of lost time from 24 Nov 70 to 4 Feb 71 as a result of military confinement.  He was charged three (3) days of lost time from 2 Nov 70 to 4 Nov 70 as a result of being AWOL.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPW evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS indicated that based upon the documentation in the file, they believe that the applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, and was with the discretion of the discharge authority.

According to AFPC/DPPRS, the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  He did not request further upgrade of his discharge nor did he provide any other facts warranting an upgrade.  They defer to the Board for a decision concerning the applicant’s request for back pay for lost time/accrued leave.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

DFAS-POCC/DE recommended denial indicating that the applicant’s upgraded discharge on 6 Jun 77 would have entitled him to payment of the six (6) days of accrued leave forfeited at separation, but no payment of lost time.  The correction of record files from 1977 are no longer available to determine if, in fact, the applicant was paid for the accrued leave.  Based on the fact that the applicant's discharge was upgraded in 1977, the Barring Act would apply.

A complete copy of the DFAS-POCC/DE evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and furnished a response indicating that he had a medical condition which should have warranted a medical discharge.

Applicant's complete response is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Medical Consultant recommended denial noting that a review by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) showed the applicant with symptoms consistent with "situational reaction," which is equivalent to an adjustment disorder.  An adjustment disorder is an unsuiting condition that does not warrant entry into the Disability Evaluation System (DES).  According to the Medical Consultant, the applicant had no medical condition that warranted entry into the DES.  In his view, the action and disposition in this case were proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law, and no change in the records is warranted.

A complete copy of the Medical Consultant's evaluation is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a response which is attached at Exhibit J.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice regarding the applicant's requests for the payment for lost time, and that his administrative discharge be changed to a medical discharge.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to favorably grant his requests.

4.  We have carefully reviewed the portion of the application pertaining to the applicant's request for payment of six days of accrued leave and the entire record, and we are not convinced that corrective action is warranted.  We note that the applicant's undesirable discharge was upgraded to general in 1977 by the AFDRB, which would have entitled him to be paid for the accrued leave.  However, as a result of his failure to timely pursue this matter, pertinent government payment records are no longer available.  Therefore, we are not inclined to recommend favorable action that would entitle him to payment of the six days of accrued leave.  Accordingly, we find no compelling basis to grant his request.

5.  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 issues 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 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-2003-00141 in Executive Session on 23 Sep 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Jan 03,w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPW, dated 27 Mar 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 Apr 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, DFAS-POCC/DE, undated.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Apr 03.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, applicant, dated 12 May 03.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 15 Jul 03.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 Jul 03.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, applicant, dated 9 Aug 03.