RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-02650
            INDEX CODE:  A68.00

            COUNSEL:  AMERICAN LEGION

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to general.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She should have been psychiatrically evaluated for aggravation due  to
the peculiarities of military life and given the benefit of doubt.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provided a  statement  from  a
physician and extracts from her military personnel records.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the
letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, recommended denial.  The Medical
Consultant noted that the applicant entered the Air Force on 1 October
1997 and in September 1998 was  tried  by  general  court-martial  and
found guilty of use of cocaine on or  about  6 March  1998.   She  was
sentenced to four months confinement and  the  BCD  was  effected  the
following December after appeal processing.  Since her discharge,  the
applicant has been treated by psychiatric  providers  in  and  out  of
hospitals for a diagnosed  psychotic  disorder  and  bipolar  disorder
(BPD).  A statement written by a  treating  physician  points  to  the
onset of this disorder while the applicant was on active duty although
her service medical records show no  evidence  of  any  such  disorder
during her service time.  Other charges of drug use prior  to  service
were dropped prior to her court-martial because of  lack  of  evidence
other than a statement made to a fellow member.  While the applicant’s
defense counsel raised the possibility of the  applicant  having  BPD,
this was not raised as an issue in preparing the trial defense, and no
substantive evidence of such a disorder was presented in the  pretrial
hearing.

According to the Medical Consultant, the records  failed  to  document
treatment for any mental health problems while the  applicant  was  on
active duty.  The records  provided  by  the  Department  of  Veterans
Affairs show treatment for schizoaffective disorder and  polysubstance
dependence in partial remission in May 2000, some 16 months after  the
applicant’s release  from  confinement  and  some  five  months  after
completion of the appeal process and her finalized discharge.  Records
indicated deterioration of her mental state over the  month  prior  to
this evaluation, dating such problems to April, or  at  the  earliest,
March 2000.  If, as the area defense counsel suggested, the  applicant
was afflicted with a mental disorder either before or while she was on
active duty, records did not support this contention, and it  appeared
that the problems found over a year  later  following  her  conviction
were new and unrelated to military service except  as  the  BCD  might
have caused increased mental  anguish.   It  also  appeared  that  the
applicant’s misconduct; i.e., cocaine use, would have been  recognized
as contrary to military standards even had  the  applicant  carried  a
diagnosis of mental health problems.

The Medical Consultant indicated that the reasons for  discharge  were
well documented and no error or irregularity occurred in this  process
which might be used as a basis for  favorable  consideration  of  this
request.  Absent evidence of  a  significant  mental  illness  in  the
service, the applicant’s request cannot be supported.  In the  Medical
Consultant’s view, no change in the records is warranted.

A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is  at  Exhibit
C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 6 Apr
01 for review and response.  As of this date,  no  response  has  been
received by this office (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM recommended denial.  JAJM noted that on 29 September  1998,
the applicant was convicted pursuant to her plea, by a general  court-
martial, of one specification of wrongful use  of  cocaine  on  divers
occasions in violation of  Article  112a,  Uniform  Code  of  Military
Justice (UCMJ).  She was sentenced to a BCD discharge, confinement for
four months, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.  The  convening
authority approved the sentence on 25 January 1999.  The Air Force  of
Court Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings of guilt and approved the
sentence on 28 April 1999.  Her petition for a grant of review by  the
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces was denied  on  21
October 1999 and the bad conduct discharge was ordered executed  on  3
December 1999.

According to JAJM, a general court-martial is an appropriate forum for
illegal drug use and the applicant’s court-martial sentence was within
the legal limits for the offenses she committed.  The applicant failed
to allege any injustice  or  error  in  her  request  to  upgrade  her
punitive discharge and no further action  on  this  matter  should  be
taken.  In  JAJM’s  view,  the  applicant’s  BCD  was  an  appropriate
punishment considering the offenses for which she was convicted.

A complete copy of the JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  applicant  on  18
Sep 01 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit F).

_________________________________________________________________

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.   The  applicant's
complete submission was thoroughly reviewed, and her contentions  were
duly noted.  However, we do not find the  applicant’s  assertions  and
the documentation presented in  support  of  her  appeal  sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices
of primary responsibility (OPRs).  The evidence  of  record  indicates
that the applicant was convicted by general court-martial of  wrongful
use of cocaine on divers occasions and was given a BCD.   No  evidence
has been presented which  has  shown  to  our  satisfaction  that  her
service characterization was improper,  or,  that  her  actions  which
resulted  in  the  BCD  were  attributable  to  a  bipolar   disorder.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,  we  adopt  the
Air Force rationale and conclude that no  basis  exists  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 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 28 Nov 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
      Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member
      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Jan 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 16 Mar 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 6 Apr 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 29 Aug 01.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 Sep 01.




                                   TERRY A. YONKERS
                                   Panel Chair