RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00018

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable  conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable and he be restored to the grade of staff sergeant    (E-5).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Based on his neuropsychological report dated 11 Jan  99,  which  shows
that he did  not  have  the  writing  or  reading  skills  to  do  the
retraining, the waiver he was given should not have been approved.

In support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  submits  copies  of  his
psychological and neuropsychological evaluations.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic  on
6 November 1973.  The  applicant  was  involuntarily  discharged  with
service  characterized  as  under   honorable   conditions   (general)
discharge on 12 May 1981 in the  grade  of  airman  first  class.   He
served 7 years, 6 months and 7 days of active service.

The applicant served as an Air Traffic Control Radar Specialist for  6
years and 8 months and then cross-trained into Intelligence Operations
where he amassed a long list of minor disciplinary infractions  which,
earlier appeals for upgrade, were attributed  by  him  to  a  lack  of
interest in staying in the Air Force because  he  had  been  denied  a
Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB)  of  some  $2500  when  his  cross-
training schooling got delayed beyond his eligibility period for  such
bonuses.   His  infractions  ranged  from  writing   bad   checks   to
dereliction of duty to disobeying orders  to  disruptive  behavior  in
dealing with other airmen.  Applicant has been  resentful  ever  since
this loss of SRB and has tried unsuccessfully to blame his behavior on
this event in the past.  The neuropsychologic evaluation  referred  to
above found him to have an IQ in the “superior” range  albeit  with  a
verbal IQ that fell  in  the  average  range.   It  is  this  reported
“defect” that he feels should have precluded granting of  a  “5  point
waiver for (his) AQE general” score that was necessary for him  to  be
accepted for cross training.

On 9 April 1981, applicant’s commander recommended  he  be  discharged
for apathy and defective attitude as evidenced by:  Article 15,  dated
5 March 1981, for willfully disobeying a  lawful  order;  several  TAC
Forms 27 for disruptive behavior and dereliction of duty; writing four
dishonored checks within a  year  without  sufficient  explanation  or
reason; poor duty performance and professional qualities;  failure  to
maintain weight standards, as evidenced by placement  on  the  Control
Roster.  An evaluation officer evaluated the case.   Member  consulted
military legal  counsel  regarding  his  discharge  but  submitted  no
written statements on his behalf.  Discharge  Authority  approved  the
discharge on 11 May 1981.

On 11 September 1984, the Air Force Discharge Review Board denied  the
applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no  change  in  the
records is warranted  and  the  application  should  be  denied.   The
results of psychologic testing done some 18 years after  discharge  do
not appear to indicate a  reason  for  the  applicant’s  attitude  and
behavior  that  led  to  his  discharge.   He  had  served  with  some
distinction while performing his radar-related duties, and only  after
his elective cross-training and loss  of  the  SRB  did  his  attitude
deteriorate along with his behavior.   Performance  reports  from  his
radar work  were  pretty  unanimously  reflective  of  his  good  duty
performance while the two written after transition to the intelligence
field were  highly  negative,  reflecting  his  changed  attitude  and
inability  to  assume  more  responsible  duties.   Indeed,   it   was
recommended he be returned  to  his  former  career  field  where  his
performance was without reported problems.   The  applicant  was  felt
capable of much more than he cared to put  forth,  and  this  was  all
noted after loss of the SRB.  There is  no  evidence  to  support  his
current claim that a mild decrement in his verbal IQ scores (18  years
post-service) were  responsible  for  his  altered  behavior  patterns
following his cross-training,  and  favorable  consideration  of  this
request is not recommended.

The BCMR Medical Consultant the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.   Applicant  did  not  submit  any  new
evidence or identify any errors or injustices  that  occurred  in  the
discharge proceedings.  Additionally, the applicant provided no  facts
warranting an upgrade of  the  discharge  he  received.   Accordingly,
DPPRS recommend his records remain the same and his request be denied.


AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On  August  13,  2002,  the  applicant,  through   his   Congressional
representative, submitted a request for assistance  in  reopening  his
request for an upgrade of his discharge s well as restoring  his  rank
of staff sergeant (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, the Board excused
the failure to timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice.  The applicant's contentions  are
duley noted; however, we agree with the BCMR Medical  Consultant  that
there is no  evidence  to  support  his  current  claim  that  a  mild
decrement in his verbal IQ scores were  responsible  for  his  altered
behavior patterns following  his  cross  training.   Therefore,  after
careful  consideration  of  the  available  evidence,  we   found   no
indication that  the  actions  taken  to  affect  his  discharge  were
improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations in
effect at the time, or that the actions taken  against  the  applicant
were based on factors other than his own misconduct.  In view  of  the
above and absent persuasive evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________

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 Docket  Number  02-00018
in Executive Session on 29 January 2003, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Martha Evans, Member
                 Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Nov 01, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Discharge Review Board Hearing, dated 11 Sep 84.
      Exhibit D. BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 13 Feb 02
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 21 Mar 02
      Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Apr 02.
      Exhibit G. Letter, Congressional Inquiry, 25 Nov 02, w/atchs.






      PHILIP SHEUERMAN
      Panel Chair