RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02676

            COUNSEL:  VFW

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

After returning from Vietnam, he encountered anti-war  demonstrators,  which
greatly affected his ability to handle the stressors  of  military  service,
and requested to be discharged for the good of the service.

The applicant states that he contacted the base commander and  requested  to
be discharged; however, the base commander wanted him to stay in.  Since  he
was at his wits end, he insulted the base commander and as a result, he  was
discharged with his service characterized as general.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 5 September 1968, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  for  a
period of four years.

On 5 May 1971, he was placed on the Control Roster for a period of 90  days,
which was not  completed  due  to  his  Absence  Without  Leave  (AWOL)  and
confinement.

On 11 May 1971, applicant received nonjudicial punishment under  Article  15
of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being AWOL from 21  April
through 28 April 1971.  The punishment consisted of reduction to  the  grade
of airman and forfeiture of $40.00 pay per month for two months.

He received two Letters of Reprimand (LORs) for failing to report  for  duty
on 17 May and 8 June 1971.

He underwent a psychiatric evaluation at Portsmouth  Naval  Hospital  on  16
May 1971 and was  diagnosed  as  suffering  from  severe  passive-aggressive
personality.

He received another Article 15 on 18 June 1971 for  failure  to  report  for
duty on 15 June and 16 June 1971.  The punishment consisted  of  restriction
to Pease AFB and forfeiture of $25.00 pay per month for two months.

He was convicted of being AWOL from 28 June through  10  August  1971  by  a
Special Court-Martial on  31  August  1971.   The  punishment  consisted  of
confinement at hard labor for a month, forfeiture of $120.00 pay  per  month
for three months, and reduction to the grade of airman basic.

He was removed from the Control Roster on 10  September  1971  when  it  was
determined his separation was more appropriate.

On  15  September  1971,  he  was  notified  by  the  unit  commander   that
administrative discharge action was being initiated against  him  under  the
provisions of AFM 39-12, Chapter 2, Section A, Paragraph  2-4b,  because  he
had been diagnosed as  possessing  a  character  and  behavior  disorder  of
“passive-aggressive personality  -  severe.”   He  consulted  with  military
counsel and submitted a statement to the commander and  evaluation  officer,
who determined that a General discharge, rather than a Honorable  discharge,
without  probation  and  rehabilitation  was  warranted  due  to  the   five
documented violations of Article 86 (AWOL) over the  last  six  months.   He
was not entitled to meet an administrative discharge board.

The discharge authority approved the discharge on 28 September 1971.

On 8 October 1971, he was discharged with serviced characterized as  general
(under honorable conditions).  He completed 3 years and 26  days  of  active
service, which excludes 82 days of lost time (i.e., 50 days  AWOL  21  -  28
Apr 71, 2 Jun - 4 Jun 71, and 28 Jun - 9 Aug 71, and 32 days confinement  10
Aug - 10 Sep 71).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states,  in  part,  that
based upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent  with
the procedural and substantive requirements  of  the  discharge  regulation.
In addition, the discharge  was  within  the  discretion  of  the  discharge
authority.  The applicant provided no facts warranting  an  upgrade  of  his
discharge.


The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 20 September 2002 for review and response within 30  days.   However,  as
of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After thoroughly  reviewing  the  evidence
of record and  noting  the  applicant’s  complete  submission,  we  find  no
evidence of  error  or  injustice.   In  this  respect,  we  note  that  the
discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing  manual  in  effect
at the time of his separation and we find no evidence to indicate  that  his
separation from the Air Force was inappropriate.  We  find  no  evidence  of
error in this case and after thoroughly  reviewing  the  documentation  that
has been submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do  not  believe  he
has suffered from an injustice.  Therefore, based on the available  evidence
of  record,  we  find  no  basis  upon  which  to  favorably  consider  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  02-02676  in
Executive Session on 19 December 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
                       Ms. Martha Evans, Member
                       Ms. Diane Arnold, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Aug 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Sep 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Sep 02.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair