RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01168
            INDEX CODE 110.00  126.04

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

His enlisted grade of E-4 be restored.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In Jun 99, he received a diagnosis of bipolar disorder by  a  civilian
psychiatrist.   While  in  the  military  he  was  diagnosed  by   one
psychiatrist as alcohol dependent and was under his care.   He  had  a
relapse and received nonjudicial punishment  under  Article 15,  which
eventually led to his discharge.  Before he was discharged, he had  an
episode while at Langley AFB and was diagnosed with  manic  depression
and transferred to Portsmouth Naval Hospital where he was diagnosed as
manic  depressive.   He  was  sent  back  to  Eglin  AFB  for  further
treatment; however,  he  was  denied  treatment  due  to  his  pending
discharge in a couple of days.

In support of his appeal, the applicant  provided  copies  of  medical
documentation, including a statement from a physician, his  separation
document, and his enlisted performance reports (OPRs).

Applicant’s complete submission 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.  Accordingly, there is no need to recite these  facts  in  this
Record of Proceedings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, reviewed  this  application  and
recommended denial.  The Medical Consultant noted that  the  applicant
was treated for alcohol dependence with a reported heavy intake of  up
to a half a gallon of liquor at a time and was counseled  and  treated
with anti-alcohol medications.  While on apparent terminal  leave,  he
was hospitalized at Norfolk Naval Hospital  with  a  substance-induced
mood disorder which, on admission was tentatively felt to  be  bipolar
disorder.  This was the working diagnosis on admission only,  and  the
discharge diagnosis was not in any way felt to represent  a  psychosis
or disorder related to anything other than substance  abuse.   He  was
transferred back to his duty station  and  hospitalized  overnight  at
Eglin AFB where his discharge diagnoses  were:   Agitated  episode  of
undetermined etiology,  drug-induced  acute  brain  syndrome,  alcohol
dependence currently in remission, and post-spinal tap  headache.   He
was not felt to  meet  criteria  of  bipolar  disorder  or  any  other
psychiatric condition that would warrant medical hold  for  evaluation
prior to administrative discharge.  The Medical Consultant also  noted
that a previous request for upgrade of discharge was denied by the Air
Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB), on 7 Nov 97, in response to  the
applicant’s request that included no issues upon which to base such an
upgrade.  In Jun 99, almost three years following his  discharge,  the
applicant was diagnosed with a depressive disorder and alcohol  abuse,
and remains under treatment for these problems. Although the applicant
stated he is being treated for bipolar disorder, he  did  not  provide
confirmation of this diagnosis in the package available for review  at
this time.

According to the Medical Consultant,  the  applicant  clearly  had  an
alcohol  dependence  and  abuse  history  that  led   to   nonjudicial
punishment and general discharge actions.  Records did not support his
contention that he was diagnosed with bipolar disorder  while  in  the
Air Force nor in  the  intervening  four  and  half  years  since  his
discharge.  There was insufficient evidence to utilize in a  favorable
consideration of his present request, and upgrade of discharge  and/or
reinstatement of his  highest  grade  held  (senior  airman)  are  not
recommended.

In the opinion of the Medical Consultant, no change in the records  is
warranted.

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

The Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM, reviewed  this  application
and recommended denial.  JAJM noted that the applicant was  discharged
for misconduct on 12 Nov 96 for a number of incidents that appeared to
have  been  related  to  his  alcohol  dependence.   He  received  two
nonjudicial punishments for three actions  that  formed  part  of  the
basis of the applicant’s discharge.  He was punished under Article 15,
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ),  on  14  Jun  96,  for  being
incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties due to previous
overindulgence of alcohol and making a  false  official  statement,  a
violation of Articles 134 and 107, UCMJ.  His punishment consisted  of
a reduction to airman first class and 30 days extra duty.  The  second
action was on 27 Sep 96 for failing to go to his place of duty  on  16
Sep 96 and for being incapacitated for the proper performance  of  his
duties due to previous overindulgence  of  alcohol,  in  violation  of
Articles 86 and 134, UCMJ.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to
the rank of airman basic.

JAJM further noted that the reasons for the applicant's discharge were
five  incidents  of  misconduct,  albeit  apparently  related  to  the
applicant's  alcohol   dependency.   He   received   two   nonjudicial
punishments for three of the incidents.

JAJM indicated that nonjudicial punishment is permitted by Article 15,
UCMJ (Section 815, Title 10, United States Code), and governed by  the
Manual for Courts-Martial and  Air  Force  Instruction  51-202.   This
procedure permits commanders to dispose of  certain  offenses  without
trial by court-martial unless the  service  member  objects.   Service
members first must be notified by their commanders of  the  nature  of
the charged offense, the evidence supporting the offense, and  of  the
commander’s intent to  impose  nonjudicial  punishment.   The  service
member may then consult with a defense counsel to determine whether to
accept nonjudicial punishment proceedings or demand  trial  by  court-
martial.  Accepting the proceedings is simply a choice of forum; it is
not an admission of guilt.

According  to  JAJM,  a  member   accepting   nonjudicial   punishment
proceedings may make a personal presentation to the commander or elect
to submit written matters or both.  The member may have a spokesman at
the hearing, may request that witnesses appear and  testify,  and  may
present evidence.  The commander must consider any information offered
during that hearing and must be convinced by  reliable  evidence  that
the member committed the offense before imposing punishment.   Members
who wish to contest their commander’s determination or the severity of
the punishment imposed may appeal to the next higher  commander.   The
appeal authority may set aside the punishment, decrease its  severity,
or deny the appeal.

JAJM noted that, on both occasions, the applicant  consulted  counsel,
accepted the nonjudicial  punishment,  declined  to  make  a  personal
presentation  and  elected  to  submit  written  matters.    In   both
instances, after  the  commander  concluded  that  the  applicant  had
committed the offenses and imposed punishment, he did not appeal.

According to JAJM, both Article 15’s were supported by the  facts  and
are legally sufficient.  The applicant has provided no evidence  of  a
clear  error  or  injustice  related  to  the  nonjudicial  punishment
proceedings.

JAJM indicated  that  they  defer  to  Personnel  to  comment  on  the
appropriateness of the  discharge  but  the  discharge  paperwork  and
supporting evidence are legally sufficient to support  the  discharge.
The medical review concluded there was no medical basis for upgrade of
the discharge.

A complete copy of the AFLSA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit D.

The Separations Branch,  AFPC/DPPRS,  reviewed  this  application  and
recommended denial.  DPPRS noted that, on 18  Oct  96,  the  commander
notified the applicant he was being discharged  for  misconduct,  more
specifically, for  a  pattern  of  misconduct.   On  12  Mar  96,  the
applicant failed to follow instructions by drinking while  in  alcohol
rehabilitation  counseling,  for  which  he  received  a   letter   of
counseling.   On  28  May  96,  as  a  result  of  previous   wrongful
overindulgence of intoxicating liquor, he was  incapacitated  for  the
proper  performance  of  his  duties.   He  received  an  Article  15,
reduction to airman first class and 30 days extra duty.  On 28 May 96,
the applicant, with the intent to deceive, made an official  statement
that he was going to sick call.  This  statement  was  false  and  the
applicant did not report to sick call.  On 16 Sep  96,  the  applicant
failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed  place  of  duty.
He received an Article 15 with a reduction to airman basic.  On 16 Sep
96, as a result of previous wrongful  overindulgence  in  intoxicating
liquor, he was incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties.

Based upon the documentation in the file, DPPRS  indicated  that  they
believe  the  discharge  was  consistent  with  the   procedural   and
substantive requirements of the discharge  regulation.   Additionally,
the discharge  was  within  the  sound  discretion  of  the  discharge
authority.

In DPPRS’ view, the applicant did  not  submit  any  new  evidence  or
identify any errors or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the  discharge
processing. Additionally, he provided no facts warranting  an  upgrade
of his discharge.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory  opinions  and  furnished  a  response
indicating that if the Board does not see enough evidence  to  upgrade
his rank to E-4, he does understand.  The incidents were caused by him
because he did not know what was going on and did not look for answers
at the time.  Instead, he tried to fix what  was  wrong.   As  for  as
upgrading his discharge to general, he believes that he has given more
than six and half years of great service and feels that he  does  have
some circumstances that can  be  seen  as  a  reason  to  upgrade  his
discharge.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   The  applicant's
complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his  contentions  were
duly noted.  However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions or the
documentation  presented  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override   the
rationale provided by the Air Force offices of primary  responsibility
(OPR).  The  evidence  of  record  reflects  that  the  applicant  was
involuntarily  discharged  for  misconduct.   No  evidence  has   been
presented which would lead  us  to  believe  that  his  administrative
discharge was improper or contrary to the  governing  directive  under
which it was effected.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence that the
applicant’s substantial rights were  violated,  that  the  information
contained in the discharge  case  file  was  erroneous,  or  that  his
superiors abused their discretionary authority, 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 11 Oct 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
      Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
      Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Apr 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 14 May 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 24 Jul 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 17 Aug 01.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 24 Aug 01.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, applicant, dated 25 Sep 01.




                                   TERRY A. YONKERS
                                   Panel Chair