RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02091

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He suffered, and still does, from major depressive disorder and anxiety, which he believes led to most of his problems in the Air Force.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 1 Dec 70 for a period of four years.

On 9 Nov 72, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action with a view to effecting the applicant’s discharge.  The reasons for the action were:  on 22 Sep 72, he was evaluated by a psychiatrist and was diagnosed with a personality disorder; on 20 Jan 72, he was counseled concerning his not being ready for an inspection (dirty uniform and bad attitude); on 27 Jan 72, he was counseled on the length of his hair and conforming to AFM 35-10; on 1 Feb 72, he was counseled on being late for work and not conforming to AFM 35-10; on 10 Mar 72, he was given an Article 15 for his failure to report to work on time, for which he was reduced to the grade of airman and ordered to forfeit $25.00 per month for two months; on 13 Sep 72, he was picked up by the Security Police for having excessively long hair; on 27 Sep 72, he was given an Article 15 for disobeying a lawful order to get his haircut, for which he received a suspended reduction to the grade of airman and ordered to forfeit $25.00; on 10 Oct 72, he was given a referral Airman Performance Report (APR) for his substandard duty performance during the period 2 Oct 71 through 1 Oct 72.  The applicant was advised that a general discharge would be recommended.

In the recommendation for discharge, the commander noted the psychiatrist and Social Actions Officer reported the applicant was a drug abuser who had reported use of marijuana, mescaline, and LSD.  The applicant had reported some evidence of LSD “flashbacks” phenomena.  The commander indicated this supported the diagnoses of personality disorder.  Further, the commander indicated the applicant had been counseled several times by the First Sergeant and NCOIC regarding his ability to adapt to Air Force conditions to no avail.  Also, counseling by Social Actions had had little apparent effect.

On 17 Nov 72, the evaluation officer advised the applicant of his rights, including his right to submit a rebuttal and make statements in his own behalf.  The applicant did not submit a statement of rebuttal to the discharge action.

The office of the Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge case file to be legally sufficient and recommended the applicant be furnished a general discharge.

On 28 Nov 72, the discharge authority approved the discharge action and directed that the applicant be furnished a general discharge.

On 5 Dec 72, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFM 39-12 (Character and Behavior Disorder) and furnished a general discharge.  He was credited with two years and five days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Medical Consultant recommended denial noting the applicant was administratively discharged for unsuitability due to a personality disorder and drug abuse.  According to the Medical Consultant, there was no evidence the applicant’s misconduct and drug abuse were due to depression.  At the time of his mental health evaluation, the applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder and was determined to know right from wrong and possess the capacity to conform his behavior to law and Air Force regulations.  In the Medical Consultant’s 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 C.

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial indicating that based on the documentation in the applicant’s records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  In their view, the applicant did not submit any new evidence, identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, or provide any facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 30 Jan 04 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice warranting an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge.  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 in particular, the AFBCMR Medical Consultant, 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.  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.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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 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-2003-02091 in Executive Session on 10 March 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 17 Jun 03.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 17 Nov 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 22 Jan 04.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jan 04.