RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01808,
				   Case 2
				INDEX CODE:  110.00
				COUNSEL:  None

				HEARING DESIRED:  No

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  11 DEC 2005

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The psychological problems which he incurred and suffered from during his service period where not given the proper attention and care.  He further believes these psychological and mental problems directly contributed to his discharge and present character problems.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 30 May 1975, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) as an airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.  The applicant transferred to the Air Force Reserves (AFRes) on 29 May 1979.  He served in the AFRes from 30 May 1979 through 12 November 1980.  He reenlisted in the RegAF on 13 November 1980 for a period of four years and on 19 August 1983, he reenlisted for a period of six years.

On 14 February 1986, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend 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 with an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.  The commander stated the following reasons for the proposed discharge:

	a.  On 16 May 1984, the applicant assaulted a senior Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) and failed to obey a lawful order.  For this misconduct, he received an Article 15.

	b.  On 17 March 1985, the applicant was counseled for assaulting three Panamanian females.  

	c.  On 27 October 1985, the applicant unlawfully struck L. T. in the face at Howard Air Force Base.  For this misconduct, he received an Article 15.

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 attempts were made to rehabilitate the applicant through a Letter of Counseling by the First Sergeant, 2 January 1985; a Letter of Reprimand, 28 August 1985; Article 15, 12 November 1985; and Vacation of NCO Status, 6 June 1984; however, all attempts were to no avail.  The commander further recommended the applicant be discharged without probation and rehabilitation.

On 12 February 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.

A legal review was conducted on 5 March 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 7 March 1986, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged with a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

Applicant’s EPR profile is listed below.

			PERIOD ENDING		OVERALL EVALUATION

			  30 Nov 76				8
			  31 Aug 77				9
			  31 Aug 78				8
			  12 Nov 80		Prior Svc Enlistee, Not Rated
					for this period
			  13 Jul 81				9
			  14 May 82				9
			   7 Nov 82				9
			  26 Jul 83				9
			  26 Jul 84				9
			  26 Jul 85				9

Applicant was discharged on 19 March 1986, in the grade of airman first class 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 6 years, 9 months and 21 days of active service.

Applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB) in May 1987 to have his general discharge upgraded to honorable.  The AFDRB, on 15 March 1988, denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, states at the time of his original enlistment medical examination, the applicant completed Standard Form (SF) 93, Report of Medical History and checked “No” in response to questions: “Have you ever had or have you now:  Frequent trouble sleeping; Depression or excessive worry, Nervous trouble of any sort, and Bedwetting since age 13.”  On 26 September 1975, the applicant, while in technical training school, presented with insomnia.  His clinic medical record states, “Had similar problem before AF and treated him symptomatically.”  On 15 February 1979, the applicant completed another SF 93 during his separation medical examination which listed “History of nervous trouble since 73, self diagnosed, no treatment sought, symptomatic;” History of frequent trouble sleeping since childhood, treated, recommended exercise before bedtime, no results, presently symptomatic;” and History of bedwetting from 68-70, treated with good results.”

The applicant had a break in military service from 30 May 1979 through 12 November 1980.  During this time he was evaluated in a Veterans Affairs clinic during February and March 1980 by a psychiatrist for nervousness and was diagnosed with “anxiety neurosis.”  He was treated symptomatically with apparent resolution of symptoms.  At the time the applicant reenlisted in the RegAF, he underwent a medical examination and checked “No” on the SF 93 to the questions: “Have you ever had or have you now:  frequent trouble sleeping, depression or excessive worry, nervous trouble of any sort, and bedwetting since age 12.”

The applicant was evaluated for substance abuse at the mental health clinic because he was apprehended on 11 September 1981 for throwing a bag of marijuana from his car at the base gate.  The evaluation classified him as a “marijuana drug experimenter.”  With the recommendation of his commander, the applicant was entered into a substance abuse seminar and retained.  The 
applicant in March 1982 presented for care in the mental health clinic with nervousness and depressive symptoms due to “too much stress on flight line (his crew chief).”  His medical records also reflect the applicant was evaluated for alcohol abuse in March 1983, with no other details listed. 

On 23 June 1984, the applicant reported to the clinic with “bad nerves” and depressed mood “worsening during past few weeks.”  He was hospitalized and transferred to the inpatient psychiatric unit.  He was evaluated and treated by the hospital and was released on 14 July 1984 and returned to duty.  His discharge diagnoses were Adjustment Disorder with mixed emotional features and mixed personality disorder with traits of passive aggressiveness, inadequacy and obsessive-compulsive.

On 21 February 1985, the applicant reported to the mental health clinic with depressed mood with anxiety and was started on a very low dose of an antidepressant medication.  He was diagnosed with “situational stress” and by March was reported as doing well.

The applicant, on 10 December 1985, passed out after consuming alcohol and presented to the mental health clinic later that day for evaluation.  He was recommended for entry into the local rehabilitation program.  There are no entries in the applicant’s medical or mental health records indicating the presence of symptoms of depression or anxiety at the time.

The applicant’s separation medical examination dated 10 February 1988 records “Frequent trouble sleeping, depression and nervousness refers to hospitalization in June 1984 for 3 days for depressive episode, secondary to job pressures.  Treated with rest.  No other treatment rendered, no recurrence since.  NCNS (No complications, no sequelae).”

The applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation on 21 April 1987 by the Veterans Affairs which concluded a diagnosis of “Mixed Personality Disorder with alcoholism.”  His records further indicate he was hospitalized from 3-10 April 1987 for alcohol detoxification.  In the following years, the applicant experienced problems with poly-substance abuse, personality disorder, depression, and a psychotic episode (drug induced versus schizophrenia) in 1988.

The Medical Consultant further states the applicant is requesting his discharge be upgraded to honorable because his mental disease caused his misconduct.  The evidence in the record shows a diagnosis of a personality disorder, however, the record also shows that the applicant’s duty performance was excellent.  A pattern of recurrent off-duty physical altercations prompted the discharge action.  His military records also indicate misuse of alcohol, but show no evidence of discipline or arrests for alcohol related incidents, driving under the influence or drunk on duty, 
or other evidence that alcohol use impaired his duty performance.  Furthermore, there is no evidence that mental illness caused his misconduct, or impaired his ability to know right from wrong and adhere to the law and Air Force standards.  A review of the medical records show the applicant presented for care of nervousness and depressed mood following administrative punishments with recovery and return to duty.  There is no indication in the record that medical and mental health personnel failed to properly evaluate and treat the applicant.

Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-10, dated 1 October 1984, paragraph 5-11, states airmen may be discharged based on the presence of a personality disorder or adjustment disorder when the condition interferes with assignment or duty performance.  It further states that these conditions alone do not amount to disability warranting separation under AFR 35-4.  The paragraph further states, “The existence of a condition that is a basis for discharge under this provision does not bar separation for any other reason authorized in this regulation.  Discharge under this provision is not appropriate if the airman’s record would support discharge for another reason, such as, misconduct or unsatisfactory performance.”

A review of the applicant’s medical records reveals no evidence of a medical condition that warranted a referral for evaluation in the Disability Evaluation System leading to a disability (medical) discharge.  Personality disorders are not a disease, but are a constitutional and enduring pattern of maladjustment in the individual’s personality structure which are not medically disqualifying or unfitting but may render the individual unsuitable for further military service and may be cause for administrative action by the individual’s unit commander.  The evidence of records shows the applicant’s personality structure did not interfere with the continued performance of his military duties.  The Medical Consultant recommends the requested relief be denied.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 18 February 2005, for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.  

On 25 March 2005, the Board staff forwarded a copy of the FBI report to the applicant for review and response.  As of this date, the applicant has not responded (Exhibit H).

_________________________________________________________________

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 Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden to show that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Essentially, the applicant contends that he was suffering from psychological problems which contributed to his misconduct and subsequent discharge and he was not given proper medical attention during the contested time period.  We note that during the applicant’s second period of active duty service he was diagnosed with a personality disorder; however, we note the evidence of record does not reflect the applicant was suffering from a medical condition warranting referral for evaluation through the medical disability evaluation system (MDES).  Nor does the evidence show that he had a medical condition that prevented him from distinguishing between right and wrong or that he could not control his behavior or understand the consequences of his actions.  On the contrary, the applicant’s records reveal his duty performance was excellent.  However, he was discharged due to his misconduct off-duty, not his personality disorder.  The applicant presents insufficient evidence that his personality disorder impaired his ability to function in the military.  Therefore, based on the documentation in the applicant's records, it appears that the processing and 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.

4.	Although the applicant did not specifically request consideration based on clemency, we also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation the discharge be upgraded on that basis.  Based on the FBI report provided, it appears the applicant’s misconduct continued following his discharge.  In view of the evidence of record, we cannot conclude that clemency is warranted.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2004-01808 in Executive Session on 17 May 2005 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Jun 04.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 11 Feb 05.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Feb 05.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 18 Nov 04.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 Mar 05.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Mar 05, w/atch.