RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01838
		INDEX CODE:  110.00; 110.02
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY DATE:  12 OCTOBER 2005

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general discharge be upgraded to honorable; his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed and upgraded; and his narrative reason for separation be changed to “convenience of the government.”  
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received letters of recommendation. He was honorably discharged for the sole purpose of reenlistment prior to receiving his general discharge.  His ability to serve was impaired because of marital, family, and child care problems.  Psychiatric problems also impaired his ability to serve.  His commander abused his authority when he decided to give him a general discharge for unsuitability – apathy and defective attitude.  He should have gotten a medical discharge because he was not medically qualified to serve.

In support of the application, the applicant submits a copy of a special order for discharge, a copy of his separation document, a copy of his discharge letter, a copy of his selective reenlistment consideration form, and a copy of a special order for promotion.  The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 16 January 1975, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 18 for a period of four years in the grade of airman basic (E-1).  He was progressively promoted to the grade of sergeant (E-4) effective and with a date of rank of 1 October 1978.  He reenlisted on 3 December 1979 for a period of four years.

The following is a resume of his performance reports, commencing with the report closing 16 January 1976.

	PERIOD ENDING	OVERALL EVALUATION

	16 January 1976		8
	10 July 1976		8
	09 October 1976		8
	09 October 1977		7
	06 April 1978		9
	13 January 1979		8
	10 August 1979		8
	08 January 1980		7
	17 October 1980		4

On 7 March 1980, the applicant was counseled by his supervisor in regard to his attitude toward Noncommissioned Officers.  On 28 April 1980, he was counseled by his supervisor because he failed to show for a scheduled flight.  On 16 June 1980, he was counseled by his First Sergeant for failure to return overdue library books and reimbursement of tuition assistance.  On 20 June 1980, he was counseled by his First Sergeant for being late for Administrative Officer of the Day duties.  On 20 June 1980, he was placed on the Control Roster for 120 days due to the trend of misconduct he had developed at the time.

On 13 July 1980, the applicant was apprehended by the security police for alleged possession/use of a controlled substance -- marijuana.  On 15 July 1980, he failed to show for a scheduled squadron deployment.  For these offenses, on 12 August 1980, he received an Article 15, forfeited $100.00 a month for two months was ordered into correctional custody for seven days.

On 5 August 1980, he failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.  For this offense, on 12 August 1980, he received an Article 15, was ordered to forfeit $75.00, and was reduced to airman first class (suspended).  On 7 August 1980, he failed to show for a scheduled flight.  On 29 August 1980, he was counseled by his First Sergeant for violating the Air Force leave policy.

On 1 September 1980, he received a traffic ticket for speeding.  Based on this infraction, his commander vacated the suspended portion of the 12 August 1980 Article 15 punishment (reduction in grade to airman first class) and he was reduced to that grade with a date of rank of 12 August 1980.

On 2 October 1980, he failed to report to the clinic for a scheduled medical appointment.  On 9 October 1980, he was counseled by his first sergeant for being out of uniform (he had not changed his grade insignia necessitated by his reduction in grade).  On 10 October 1980, he was counseled by his supervisor for reporting 1 hour and 15 minutes late for duty.

On 28 October 1980, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFM 39-12, section A, paragraph 2-4c, for unsuitability – apathy defective attitude.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and, after consulting his appointed evaluation officer, submitted a statement in his own behalf.  

On 19 November 1980, a legal review of the discharge case file by the staff judge advocate found the file legally sufficient and recommended the applicant be discharged with a general discharge without the opportunity for probation and rehabilitation.  On 24 November 1980, the discharge authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed he be issued a General Discharge certificate without the opportunity for probation or rehabilitation.

On 25 November 1980, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions under the provisions of AFR 39-12 (Unsuitable – Apathy Defective Attitude).  He had served 5 years, 10 months, and 10 days on active duty.

In response to the Board’s request, the FBI indicated they were unable to identify an arrest record pertaining to the applicant on the basis of information furnished (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant opines no change in the records is warranted.  

The BCMR Medical Consultant states there are no mental health clinic records present in the case file for review.  The BCMR Medical Consultant notes the applicant’s separation medical exam makes reference to a complaint of loss of memory for which he had been seen in the mental health clinic, but on the Report of Medical History the applicant denied symptoms that would be indicative of mental illness including frequent trouble sleeping, depression or excessive worry, or nervous trouble of any sort.  The BCMR Medical Consultant observes the applicant indicated his health was good on his Dental Patient History form dated 6 August 1980.  The Department of Veterans Affairs Rating Decisions indicate denial of service connection for bipolar anxiety disorder and post traumatic stress disorder based on their review of the service medical records not showing evidence of presence of these conditions in service.  The BCMR Medical Consultant states the available medical evidence is insufficient to conclude that the applicant suffered from a psychiatric condition that caused his problems leading to discharge and that further, the condition was of sufficient severity to impair his ability to know right from wrong and choose the right.  The BCMR Medical Consultant concludes the preponderance of the evidence indicates that action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 8 October 2004, the applicant was invited to submit information pertaining to his post-service accomplishments.  In his letter dated 2 November 2004, the applicant states he has been a good citizen since departing military service.  He has worked with the homeless and homeless veterans helping them find shelter, food, clothing and transportation, and has directed them to other agencies for assistance.  He also assists with troubled youth, youth church groups, and the American Red Cross.  He attached four (4) support letters, and copies of the same documents he provided with his application as stated in his contentions above (Exhibit E).  

On 1 February 2005, a copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment.  As of this date, this office has received no response to this correspondence (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  Evidence has not been presented that would lead us to believe the applicant’s discharge was improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing directive.  The reasons discharge proceedings were initiated against the applicant are well documented in the record.  As to the applicant’s contentions concerning his medical condition at the time of his separation, he has provided no evidence that would overcome the detailed assessment of this matter by the BCMR Medical Consultant.  Other than his own assertions, we have seen no evidence by the applicant indicating that he did not commit the offenses cited by his commander as bases for the discharge action, his substantial rights were violated, his commanders abused their discretionary authority, or, on the basis of his record, a different characterization of his service than the one he received was warranted.  Therefore, we have no basis to find that his discharge under honorable conditions because of unsuitability was erroneous or unjust.  We have noted the character references provided by the applicant in support of the appeal.  While laudatory of the applicant’s character, based on the limited scope of the comments contained in the letters, they do not, in our estimation, provide a sufficient basis to upgrade his discharge to fully honorable in view of the seriousness and multiplicity of his infractions against the good order and discipline of the service.  Since we are not inclined to upgrade the character of the applicant’s discharge or to change the involuntary nature of and reason for his separation, there is no basis to change his RE code.  Accordingly, the applicant’s requests are not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable 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-2004-01838 in Executive Session on 5 May 2005 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 June 2004, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Med Consultant, dated 31 Jan 2005.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Oct 2004, w/atch;
		  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Feb 2005, w/atch.