RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02554
                       INDEX CODE:  108.00
      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  None

      SSN        HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be set aside and he
receive a disability discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have received a disability discharge due to curvature of the
spine.

He further states that since leaving the Air Force he  has  become  an
electrician and has done a great deal of government contracts.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic  on  20
March 1979 for a period of four (4) years.

On 30 April 1980, applicant was notified of his commander’s intent  to
recommend he be administratively discharged  from  the  Air  Force  in
accordance with AFM 39-12, paragraph 2-4b.

The commander stated the following reasons for the proposed discharge:

            a.  On 2 October 1979, the applicant received a letter  of
counseling (LOC) for failure to go.

            b.  The  applicant  was  placed  on  the  control   roster
on 25 January 1980 for financial irresponsibility.

            c.  On 15 March 1980, an  Incident  Complaint  Report  was
accomplished due to the applicant’s failure to  pay  a  civilian  taxi
driver for services rendered.

            d.  Applicant received an Article 15 on 21 March 1980  for
writing bad checks with the intent to defraud.

            e.  The applicant uttered a total of 44 bad checks to  the
Base Exchange, club, the audio center, the Rod and  Gun  Club,  and  a
civilian insurance firm.

            f.  The applicant was referred to Mental Health  based  on
his misconduct.   On  21  April  1980,  Mental  Health  diagnosed  the
applicant as having a Personality Disorder, mixed type  manifested  by
impulsivity, depression and poor judgment, and problem drinking.

The commander advised the applicant that he  was  recommending  he  be
furnished a General Discharge Certificate.  The commander advised that
the final decision in his case and the type of discharge  rested  with
the discharge authority.  The  commander  further  advised  that  upon
receipt of the documented case, the commander exercising court-martial
jurisdiction will appoint an evaluation officer who  will  review  the
applicant’s case file.  The evaluation officer will make  arrangements
for a  personal  interview  at  which  time  the  applicant  would  be
counseled regarding his case.  At this time  the  applicant  would  be
given the opportunity to submit a rebuttal and make statements in  his
own behalf.  The applicant was advised that  legal  counsel  had  been
obtained to assist him.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge that  both
he and the First Sergeant had counseled the applicant in an attempt to
improve his judgment and behavior; he did not alter his  behavior  and
continually failed to meet acceptable standard.  The commander did not
recommend probation and rehabilitation.

On 9 May  1980,  the  general  court-martial  authority  appointed  an
evaluation officer to consider the applicant’s case.  On 20 May  1980,
the evaluation officer indicated that he had conducted the  evaluation
between 12-20 May 1980.  He conducted a personal  interview  with  the
applicant,  advised  him  regarding  the  nature  of  the  action  and
counseled him concerning it; advised him of  his  right  to  submit  a
rebuttal and make statements in his  own  behalf  and  he  (evaluation
officer) would assist him in the preparation of these statements;  and
lastly, he advised the applicant that if he chose not to  submit  such
statements, he must acknowledge in writing that he  elected  to  waive
this right.  The evaluation officer recommended, after  receiving  the
case, that the applicant be discharged with a general  discharge,  and
not be considered for rehabilitation.

A legal review was conducted on 22 May 1980 in which the  staff  judge
advocate recommended  the  applicant  be  discharged  with  a  general
discharge certificate and that probation  and  rehabilitation  not  be
offered.

During the timeframe in question the applicant  had  only  one  airman
performance report (APR) with an overall rating of six (6).

The applicant was discharged on 6 June 1980, in the  grade  of  airman
basic, with a General Discharge certificate, in accordance with AFM 39-
12, Chapter 2.  He served a total 1 year, 2  months  and  17  days  of
active duty service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Medical  Consultant,  AFBCMR,  states  a  review  of  the
applicant’s records finds no evidence of problems with  his  spine  or
any other condition that would  have  required  the  applicant  to  be
processed through  the  disability  evaluation  system.   The  Medical
Consultant  further  states  the  action  and   disposition   of   the
applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable and in compliance  with
Air Force directives and law.  The Medical Consultant,  based  on  the
evidence presented, recommends denying the applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPD states the purpose of the  disability  evaluation  system
(DES) is to maintain a fit and vital force by separating  or  retiring
members who are unable to perform the duties of their  office,  grade,
rank or rating.  The members who are separated or retired  for  reason
of a physical  disability  may  be  eligible  for  certain  disability
compensation.  The Medical Evaluation Board (MEB)  determines  if  the
servicemember should be processed through the DES  when  a  member  is
determined to be disqualified for  continued  military  service.   The
medical  treatment  facility  that  provides  health   care   to   the
sevicemember makes the decision whether or not to conduct an MEB.

Under the provisions  of  Title  38,  USC,  servicemembers  who  incur
service-connected  medical  conditions  while  on  active   duty   are
authorized compensation and treatment from the Department of  Veterans
Affairs (DVA).  The DVA is chartered to provide continual medical care
for veterans once they leave active duty.  Under Title  38,  USC,  the
DVA may increase or decrease a member’s disability rating based on the
seriousness of the medical condition throughout his or her life  span.
DPPD  concurs  with  the  Medical  Consultant’s  deposition   of   the
applicant’s case and, based on the evidence submitted, they  recommend
denying the requested relief (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

On 3 January 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations were  forwarded
to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 of timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice.  Applicant’s contentions are duly
noted; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of  the
Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis  for  our  conclusion
that the applicant has not been the victim of an error  or  injustice.
Title 10, USC, Chapter 61 is  the  federal  statue  that  charges  the
Service Secretaries with maintaining a fit and vital  force.   For  an
individual to be considered unfit for military service, there must  be
a medical condition so severe that it prevents performance of any work
commensurate  with  rank  and  experience.   The  evidence  of  record
indicates the applicant was fit and medically qualified for  continued
military service at the time of his separation.  Furthermore, a review
of his service medical records does not indicate that he had  problems
with his spine or any other medical condition that required him to  be
processed through the DES.  The records indicated that  the  applicant
has a personality disorder as documented by a mental health evaluation
and he abused alcohol.  In this respect, it appears he was involved in
a motor vehicle incident wherein he  wrecked  his  own  vehicle  while
intoxicated.  Also, the Board notes that  the  applicant  received  an
Article 15 for writing 44 bad checks and that  he  was  pending  court
martial proceedings for failure to pay  a  civilian  taxi  driver  for
services  rendered.   Therefore,  in   view   of   the   totality   of
circumstances, it appears the discharge was  in  compliance  with  the
appropriate Air Force regulations in effect at the time.  Thus, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
02554 in Executive Session on 11 February 2003, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
                       Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Jul 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR, Medical Consultant, dated
                       25 Nov 02.
      Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 18 Dec 02.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jan 03.




                             DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
                             Panel Chair