RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-02158
		INDEX CODE 106.00
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  Not Indicated

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 1975 general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He gladly risked his life in Air Rescue in Vietnam, and was proud to be part of the historic lunar astronauts training for the Apollo mission. His wife was unhappy when he reenlisted in 1971 after his 1970 discharge. One day he found his wife at home in bed with his best friend. He tried to repair his marriage to no avail. Then his helicopter aircraft series was mothballed; his final act as a mechanic was to dismantle the very aircraft he fell in love with long ago. The combination of losing his wife and then his aircraft field seemed entirely too much. He believes he had a breakdown, but he was neither counseled nor offered a new career field. He’s 54 years old and has gotten his life back. He humbly asks for an honorable discharge.  

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 8 Jun 66 and served as a squadron helicopter mechanic. He was honorably released from active duty on 7 Apr 70 after three years and ten months of active service and transferred to the Reserves.

On 16 Jun 71, he reenlisted in the Regular Air Force and was assigned to the ---- Organizational Maintenance Squadron at Hill AFB, UT, as a squadron helicopter mechanic. He was promoted to the grade of sergeant on 21 Jun 71.

The applicant’s performance reports from 8 Jun 66 to 10 Apr 75 reflect overall ratings predominately in the “8” or “9” range except for the last report closing 10 Apr 75, which had an overall rating of “6.” His performance reports are provided at Exhibit B.

A 24 Jan 72 medical entry reported the applicant was depressed, explaining that his wife recently moved out because he returned to the service; he had apparently reenlisted because he could not find a job. The physician felt the applicant might need an antidepressant but held off prescribing for the present and referred the applicant to a psychiatric social worker on base.

On 1 Feb 72, the psychiatric social worker referred the applicant to the legal and the base personnel office for information on a hardship discharge. The applicant returned to the physician, indicating he needed a letter for a hardship discharge.

The physician wrote a “To Whom It May Concern” letter, dated 2 Feb 72, advising there was considerable friction between the applicant and his wife concerning his return to the service. The applicant did not want to reenlist but felt it was the only financially feasible thing to do. His wife became increasingly upset over this and finally separated from him. The psychiatric social worker also opined that the applicant was suffering from situational depression of moderate severity related to the imminent breakup of his marriage. Due to the applicant’s marked difficulty in performing his job under this pressure, the physician recommended the applicant be given a hardship discharge.

There is no additional documentation in the applicant’s military or medical records regarding the depression/hardship discharge request.

On 14 Dec 73, the applicant underwent an initial flight physical. During the course of the exam he apparently revealed he used intravenous (IV) amphetamines prior to reenlisting in the Air Force and used amphetamines orally two months ago. The applicant was referred to the Mental Health Clinic to be identified as a drug abuser. The physician also reported the applicant’s reference to depression, excessive worry and personal problems in 1972, which were resolved.

There is no additional documentation in the applicant’s military or medical records regarding the amphetamine use and/or a Mental Health Clinic determination regarding drug abuse.

On 24 Jul 74, the applicant failed to report for duty and was absent without leave (AWOL) for five days until he voluntarily returned to duty on 29 Jul 74.

On 16 Aug 74, the applicant’s commander notified a loan company that the applicant had been counseled about his indebtedness and forwarded a payment.

However, the commander received another letter of indebtedness on 21 Aug 74 regarding nonpayment on rental property. As a result, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) on 29 Aug 74 for not keeping his promise to make payments.

On 12 Dec 74, the applicant received another LOR for reporting late for duty on 11 Dec 74. The LOR was filed in his Unfavorable Information File (UIF). 

The applicant failed to report for duty on 2 Jan 75 and was AWOL for four days until he voluntarily returned to duty on 6 Jan 75. The first sergeant’s statement indicates the applicant said he was drunk and could not make it to work.

On 17 Jan 75, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for being AWOL from 2 until 6 Jan 75. After consulting with counsel, applicant waived his right to a trial by court-martial, did not request a personal appearance or submit a written presentation. On 5 Feb 75, his commander found him guilty and imposed punishment in the form of reduction from sergeant to airman first class (A1C), suspended until 30 Apr 75 unless sooner vacated, and forfeiture of $100.00 per month for two months. Applicant did not appeal the punishment.

The applicant did not report for duty on 5 Feb 75. He told the first sergeant he had overslept. He was told to report by a certain time. However, he called his supervisor and told him he had to go to the legal, finance and other offices regarding personal matters. He was given permission to do so and told to report on time the next day. He reported late on 6 Feb 75 and asked his supervisor for permission to get a haircut, which the supervisor gave because the applicant apparently needed one. He never returned until the next day, without having gotten a haircut. When queried, he said he didn’t have the money and had instead gone to his last duty section and talked to the men there.

The applicant failed to report for duty on 20 Feb 75 and was AWOL for four days until 24 Feb 75 when he voluntarily reported to his unit. The applicant again failed to report for duty on 5 Mar 75 and was AWOL for five days until 10 Mar 75 when he voluntarily returned to duty.

On 25 Mar 75, his commander vacated the suspended reduction imposed by Article 15 on 5 Feb 75 because of the two latest AWOL incidents. The applicant did not desire a personal appearance and did not submit written materials. The applicant was reduced to A1C with a date of rank (DOR) of 5 Feb 75.

On 26 Mar 75, the commander imposed another Article 15 for the two AWOL incidents and further reduced the applicant to airman with a DOR of 25 Mar 75. The applicant did not make a presentation and did not appeal. 

On 28 Mar 75, the applicant was notified of the commander’s intent to recommend a general discharge for the AWOL incidents and the LORs. That same day, the commander recommended the applicant be discharged with a general characterization. On 31 Mar 75, after consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his right to an administrative discharge board. 

Legal review on 24 Apr 75 noted that the record of rehabilitation attempts warranted comment. AFM 39-12 mandated pre-processing rehabilitation attempts. The Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) noted the record indicated only the rehabilitation effort that is inherent in the imposition of punishment under Article 15 and administrative reprimands. The SJA added this effort met only the minimum requirement for legal sufficiency and indicated a lack of concern for counseling the applicant concerning any problems he may have been experiencing. Given the minimum rehabilitation effort, the SJA found the file legally sufficient and concurred with the general discharge. Probation and rehabilitation (P&R) was not recommended because of the applicant’s record of misconduct and his lack of a positive attitude toward rehabilitation efforts.

On 25 Apr 75, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s general discharge.

The applicant was separated in the grade of airman with a general discharge on 28 Apr 75 after a total of 7 years, 7 months and 26 days of active service. He had 18 days of lost time.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C., indicated that on the basis of the data furnished, they were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent with governing directives and within the discharge authority’s discretion. The applicant has not demonstrated either an error or injustice and his appeal should be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 1 Aug 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

By letter dated 14 Aug 03, the AFBCMR Staff invited the applicant to submit post-service information. The Staff also included an Information Bulletin to assist him with this endeavor. The applicant responded with a copy of the 5 Dec 02 personal statement that he provided earlier with his DD Form 149, and two character references. One reference is from his wife and the other appears to be from a friend.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his general discharge should be upgraded to honorable. The applicant provides no persuasive documentation showing his general discharge was not supported by his own misconduct or was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the time. The Board can sympathize with his depression over the deterioration of his marriage and the loss of his aircraft career field. However, these problems do not totally mitigate the applicant’s repeated AWOL episodes and additional infractions, which resulted in three Article 15s and other administrative disciplinary action. The applicant now asserts he has gotten his life back. Although invited by the AFBCMR Staff to submit post-service information demonstrating he has become a productive member of society, the applicant provided letters only from his wife and from someone who appears to be a friend. He has not shown that he has been the victim of error or injustice or that his conduct since his discharge has overcome his misbehavior while in the military. As such, he has not made a case for relief on the basis of either merit or clemency. However, should he provide post-service information such as suggested in the Information Bulletin provided by the AFBCMR Staff in their 14 Aug 03 letter, we would 
be willing to review his case for possible reconsideration. Until then, 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 this application in Executive Session on 23 September 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-02158 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Jul 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report - Negative.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 24 Jul 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Aug 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Aug 03, w/atch.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Dec 02 (duplicate of
				statement w/Exhibit A), w/atchs.