RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02681
            INDEX CODE:  110.00, 110.03,
                                    108.00

            COUNSEL:  LOUIS M. DIDONATO

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  administrative  (general)  discharge  be  reversed  and   he   be
reinstated in the Air Force until eligible for retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Administrative actions taken in his case were improper and psychiatric
problems were not properly  diagnosed.   Specifically,  the  following
issues were cited:

      1.  Failure to properly diagnose and treat his  psychiatric  and
physical ailments and instead punished the symptoms.

      2.  Failure to provide his counsel exculpatory  material  during
the administrative discharge board.

       3.  Failure   to   provide   effective   counsel   during   the
administrative discharge board and board appeal process.

      4.  Failure to take action on his retirement application.

He has been rated by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA)  with  a
50% service-connected disability.

In support of  his  request,  counsel  submits  a  legal  Brief,  with
additional  documents  associated  with  the  issues  cited   in   his
contentions.  These documents are appended at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular  Air  Force
on 6 Jan 78.  He was progressively promoted  to  the  grade  of  staff
sergeant (E-5), with an effective date and date of rank of 1  Feb  86.
However, subsequent to receipt of an Article 15  in  Oct  94,  he  was
reduced to the grade of senior airman (E-4), with an effective date of
rank (DOR) of 7 Oct 94.

The following is a resume of applicant’s EPR ratings subsequent to his
promotion to the grade of E-5 (oldest to most recent:  9, 7, 9, 9,  9,
5 (new rating system 1-5), 5, 4, 2, 2 (E-4).

On 29 Sep 95, the applicant was separated from the Air Force under the
provisions of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.50  (Pattern  of  Misconduct  -
Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and  Discipline),  and  received  an
under honorable conditions (general) discharge.  He  had  completed  a
total of 17 years, 8 months and 25 days and was serving in  the  grade
of senior airman (E-4) at the time of discharge.  The Secretary of the
Air  Force  considered  and  denied  the  applicant  lengthy   service
probation.

The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from  the
applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by
the appropriate offices of the Air Force.  Accordingly,  there  is  no
need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant  stated  that  the  applicant  had  been
diagnosed in Dec 93 with anxiety and a phobia of enclosed  spaces  and
fear of flying, and several attempts to treat this disorder  were  met
with his failures to go to therapy sessions.   This  anxiety  disorder
was never considered unfitting for continued  military  service.   The
AFBCMR Medical Consultant indicated that there is no evidence  in  the
records to indicate a misdiagnosis of any mental health disorder,  and
all appropriate due process was available  to  the  applicant  in  the
discharge proceedings.  The other diagnoses for which  the  Department
of Veterans Affairs (DVA) is currently compensating the applicant were
minor and obviously not unfitting for continued military service,  and
were properly not  considered  for  disability  processing  while  the
applicant was on active duty.  Evidence of record  establishes  beyond
all reasonable doubt that the applicant was  medically  qualified  for
continued active duty, that the reason for his separation was  proper,
and that no error or injustice occurred  in  this  case.   The  AFBCMR
Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records  is
warranted and the application should be denied (Exhibit C).


The Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, stated that on 2  Dec  94,  the
applicant was notified by his  commander  that  involuntary  discharge
action had been initiated against him for  a  pattern  of  misconduct.
The reasons for the discharge action follows:

      a  On 7 Feb 93, he  caused  a  breach  of  peace  by  unlawfully
brandishing a firearm at, and assaulting, an individual at his on-base
quarters - received an Article 15,  with  punishment  of  a  suspended
reduction to the grade of senior airman and forfeiture of $200 pay per
month for two months.

      b.  On 13 Jun  94,  missed  a  scheduled  dental  appointment  -
received a Letter of Counseling (LOC).

      c.  On 12 Aug  94,  missed  a  scheduled  dental  appointment  -
received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).

      d.  On 20 Sep 94, failure  to  go  at  the  time  prescribed  to
appointed place of duty - received an Article 15, with punishment of a
reduction to the grade of senior airman and a reprimand.

DPPRS indicated that the applicant was  advised  he  had  a  right  to
consult counsel and the  right  to  appear  before  an  administrative
discharge  board.   On  12  Dec  94,  applicant  elected  to  have  an
administrative discharge board consider his case.  On  20  Jan  95,  a
Board of Officers convened and  recommended  applicant  be  discharged
with a general discharge for a pattern  of  misconduct  consisting  of
conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline and that  he  not  be
offered probation and rehabilitation (P&R).  Applicant, who  had  over
17 years of active service, requested lengthy service  probation.   On
21 Feb 95, the discharge authority approved the board and  directed  a
general discharge.  The case  was  processed  through  the  Major  Air
Command and HQ AFMPC to the Air Force Personnel Board (SAF/PC) and  on
18 Aug 95, the Secretary of the Air Force directed that  the  approved
administrative  discharge  be  executed  and  denied  lengthy  service
probation.

DPPRS reviewed this case for separation processing and found no errors
or irregularities causing an injustice to the applicant.  DPPRS stated
that the discharge complies with directives in effect at the  time  of
his discharge.  The records indicate the applicant’s military  service
was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.  DPPRS recommended  the
applicant’s request be denied (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel reviewed the advisory opinions and indicated that the opinions
are loaded with conclusions that are unsupported by either reasons  or
bases.  Counsel stated that the opinions  fail  to  address  the  main
points of their argument.  The applicant was  medically  incapable  of
performing the tasks his command ordered. Applicant’s command punished
him  for  his  medical  conditions.   Likewise  the  command  knew  of
exculpatory evidence and  failed  to  provide  it  to  the  applicant.
Finally, the command failed to ensure that he  got  effective  counsel
during the hearing and during the appellate stage.  For these reasons,
counsel feels that the Air Force committed an injustice in  separating
the applicant prior to  his  retirement.   A  complete  copy  of  this
response is appended at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Staff Judge Advocate, HQ AFPC/JA,
provided an advisory opinion concerning  the  cited  allegations.   JA
stated  that  on  29  Dec  93,  a  commander-directed  mental   health
evaluation to determine applicant’s fitness for  duty  indicated  that
applicant suffered an anxiety disorder.  The medical diagnosis did not
support  a  medical  discharge  or  retirement  through  the  physical
disability system, nor did the  diagnosis  support  an  administrative
discharge for personality disorder.  Arrangements were made  to  treat
the anxiety disorder; however, prior to completion of  the  treatment,
applicant missed a treatment appointment.   Because  applicant  had  a
history of missed medical appointments, he received an Article 15  for
his failure to  go  and  his  commander  initiated  an  administrative
discharge action.  Applicant met an administrative discharge board  on
20 Jan 95.  The administrative discharge board  found  that  applicant
had failed to report to his appropriate place of duty by missing  each
of the alleged appointments; however, the board found  that  applicant
had not breached the peace and committed an  assault.   His  case  was
reviewed by the Secretary of the Air  Force  and  denied  for  lengthy
service probation and the applicant was discharged.

JA addressed counsel’s four  allegations  in  their  advisory  opinion
(refer to advisory opinion for discussion).

JA reviewed the applicant’s case and is of the  opinion  that  he  was
adequately represented  at  his  administrative  discharge  board  and
during post-board proceedings.  Furthermore, in  JA’s  opinion,  there
were no errors or injustices in the processing of  his  administrative
discharge.  For these  reasons,  JA  recommended  the  application  be
denied in its entirety (Exhibit G).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel stated that looking at the whole  picture,  the  Board  cannot
help but come to  the  conclusion  that  the  applicant’s  elimination
stinks.  It does not demonstrate a leadership model at Travis AFB that
worked.  What the actions leading up to his elimination demonstrate is
a petty and vindictive use of the system against one  of  the  “little
guys” by a commander who was a less  than  inspirational  model.   Her
leadership demonstrates a perversion  of  the  system  to  applicant’s
detriment when he attempted to retire.  The applicant was not  treated
the way Air Force regulations and instructions directed.  The squadron
and base shaved corners to the significant detriment of the  applicant
and the USAF.  A complete copy of counsel’s response  is  appended  at
Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice.  We took notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we  agree  with  the  opinions  and  recommendations  of  the
respective Air Force offices and adopt the rationale expressed as  the
basis for our decision that the applicant has failed  to  sustain  his
burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  In  view
of the  above  and  absent  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

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  issue(s)   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is 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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 6 January 2000, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Michael Barbino, Member
                  Ms. Kathy Boockholdt, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Sep 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 2 Nov 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 17 Nov 98.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 30 Nov 98.
   Exhibit F.  Letter from counsel, dated 17 Dec 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 11 Jun 99.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 28 Jun 99.
   Exhibit I.  Letter from counsel, dated 10 Aug 99, w/atchs.




                                   Charles E. Bennett
                                   Panel Chair