RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02356
		INDEX CODE:  110.02
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  1 NOVEMBER 2005

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to Honorable.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His separation was based on a medical condition and not anything he did wrong.  There has been many questions as to his character of separation.  He is entitled to some VA benefits based on his condition.  In support of the application, the applicant submits a copy of his separation document.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 5 March 1979, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 20 in the grade of Airman Basic for a period of 4 years.  He was subsequently promoted to the rank of Airman First Class with a date of rank of 3 December 1980.  The applicant received four Airman Performance Reports (APRs), in which the overall evaluations were 7, 8, 7 and 6.

On 3 December 1979, the applicant received an Article 15 for being drunk and disorderly.  For this incident, he was reduced to the grade of airman basic, and forfeited $100 for 1 month.

On 1 September 1981, he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for reporting late for duty.  On 15 September 1981, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) because he failed to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed.  An Unfavorable Information File (UIF) was established.

On 19 February 1982, he was unruly, disrespectful, and did use profanity when directed to perform shop cleanup. For this incident, he received an LOR and his name was placed on the control roster.  On 6 March 1982, he received an LOC because he failed to maintain proper status while on standby duty.  On 9 April 1982, he received an LOC for sleeping on duty during roll call.

In a Mental Health evaluation dated 15 April 1982, the chief, mental health clinic opined the applicant was not amenable to treatment, transfer, disciplinary action, training or reclassification to another type of military duty.  The examiner diagnosed the applicant as having a mental disorder as contained in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III) for Other Personality Disorder 301.89.

On 21 June 1982, the applicant’s commander notified him that she was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force under AFM 39-12, Chapter 2, Section A for unsuitability.  After consulting military legal counsel, the applicant declined to submit statements on his behalf.  On 21 June 1982, the applicant’s commander forwarded the recommendation to the group commander.  The commander further recommended he be issued a General Discharge certificate.  The discharge case file was reviewed by the staff judge advocate on 7 July 1982, and found legally sufficient.  The staff judge advocate forwarded the discharge case file for review to the discharge authority.  The discharge authority approved the recommended separation and directed the applicant be discharged without the offer of probation and rehabilitation and issued a General Discharge certificate.

On 13 July 1982, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions, in the grade of airman first class, under the provisions of AFM 39-12, for unsuitability – personality disorder.  He had served 3 years, 4 months and 9 days on active duty, to include 1 year, 11 months and 25 days of foreign service. 

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) provided a copy of an investigative report pertaining to the applicant (Identification Record No., which is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

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

The BCMR Medical Consultant states a review of the records shows that the applicant’s commander based discharge on both unsuitability due to personality disorder and a pattern of misconduct.  AFM 39-12 specifically allows for a general characterization of service for members being discharged for personality disorder; paragraph 2-3 Types of Discharges Permitted:  “An airman discharged for unsuitability under this section will be furnished an honorable discharge certificate unless the military record warrants the issuance of a general discharge.  The fact that an airman is being discharged for unsuitability, will not, in itself, constitute a basis for determining that the airman should receive a general rather than an honorable discharge (see paragraphs 1-24c and d).”  Elsewhere in this discharge regulation is guidance regarding characterization of service including “The issuance of an honorable discharge is conditioned upon proper military behavior and proficient performance of duty with due consideration for the airman’s age, length of service, grade and general aptitude.”, and “A general discharge is a separation from the Air Force under honorable conditions.  Ordinarily, an airman will be issued a general discharge if the military record is not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.”  The BCMR Medical Consultant states evidence of the record shows the applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder that was unsuiting for continued military service and that the applicant’s commander acted within his discretionary authority to characterize his service as general.  The BCMR Medical Consultant concludes action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.  A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment on 3 August 2005.  On 16 August 2005, the applicant was invited to submit information pertaining to his post-service activities.  On 25 August 2005, a copy of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) report was forwarded to the applicant.  As of this date, this office has received no response to any of the before-mentioned 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.  In addition, in view of the applicant’s apparent involvement with civilian law enforcement since his separation and absent other evidence by the applicant attesting to a successful post service adjustment, we are not inclined to favorably consider his request based on clemency.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice 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 4 October 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-02356:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Jun 04 w/atch.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant’s available Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Med Consultant, dated 1 Aug 05.
	Exhibit D.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Aug 05; AFBCMR, dated
                 16 Aug 05 and 25 Aug 05 w/atch.
Exhibit E.  FBI Report.