RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-01652 INDEX CODE:	100.00, 110.00

COUNSEL:	NONE HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1.	His DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, be corrected to reflect he served on active duty for 99 days in order to be eligible for Veterans benefits.

2.	His service number be added to his DD Form 214.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He is being told that he is not eligible for VA benefits.
He served 99 days of active duty service which clearly makes him eligible for all benefits.

He served faithfully. He did not attempt suicide as stated by his commander. He asks had it been proven he did attempt suicide, would he have been given an honorable discharge?

He was led to believe he would receive an honorable discharge under medical conditions, with a certain percentage of monthly disability.

In support of his request, applicant provided a VA Form 21-4138, Statement in Support of Claim, DD Form 214, DD Form 4, Enlistment Contract – Armed Forces of the United States, AF Form 100, Request and Authorization for Separation, and various documents pertaining to his discharge.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 19 May 71.	His highest grade held was airman (E-2).

The	applicant	was	evaluated	by	the	Military	Community	Mental Health Service Hospital, Sheppard AFB, TX on 19, 20, and 21 Jul
71.	He was diagnosed with a character and behavior disorder,

best described as Schizoid Personality, which was chronic and severe in nature. In the opinion of the evaluating officer, the applicant’s disorder did not fall under the purview of the disability evaluation system and he recommended the applicant be considered for administrative discharge.

On 5 Aug 71, the squadron commander notified the applicant that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for a character and behavior disorder. Applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification, was interviewed and counseled by an evaluation officer, and was afforded an opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.

On 24 Aug 71, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 27 Aug 71, in the grade of airman, under the provisions of AFM 39-12, for Convenience of the Government, Unsuitability - Character and Behavior Disorders and received an honorable discharge. He served on active duty for a period of three months and nine days or a total of 99 days.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not provide any evidence that an error or injustice occurred in the processing of his discharge warranting a change to his discharge basis.

The complete DPSOS evaluation, with attachments is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 26 Sep 08, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response has not been received.

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.	We took notice
1.	
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 office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. The applicant contends his DD Form 214 does not reflect the 99 days that he served on active duty in the Air Force; however, his DD Form 214 accurately reflects three months and nine days (99 days) of active duty service. In addition, the applicant requested that his Air Force service number be added to his DD Form 214; however, after a thorough review of his military service records it appears he was never issued an AF service number. However, should the applicant provide evidence he was assigned an AF service number, the Board would be willing to reconsider his request. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

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 Docket Number BC-2008-01652 in Executive Session on 30 Oct 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair 
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2008-01652 was considered:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 1 Apr 08, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 13 Aug 08. Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Sep 08.