RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03305
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
      APPLICANT        COUNSEL:  None

      SSN        HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under honorable conditions  (general)  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was suffering from depression and this caused his misconduct.  He
further contends he was not properly diagnosed or treated  while  on
active duty.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 3 March 1980, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  as
an airman first class for a period of six (6) years.

During his time on active duty,  the  applicant  was  treated  for  a
variety of medical conditions  which  are  addressed  by  the  AFBCMR
Medical Consultant (Exhibit C).

On 21  July  1986,  the  applicant's  commander  recommended  he  be
discharged from the  Air  Force  for  conduct  prejudicial  to  good
conduct and discipline in  accordance  with  AFR  39-10,  under  the
provisions of paragraph 5-47B.

The  commander  stated  the  following  reasons  for  the   proposed
discharge:

      a.  On 14 January 1986, the applicant  received an Article  15
for  being  drunk  and  disorderly  on  1  January  1986,  for  this
infraction he received a reduction in grade and forfeiture of $200 a
month for one month.  The  execution  of  the  grade  reduction  was
suspended and would  be  remitted  without  further  action  if  not
vacated before 12 July 1986.

      b.  He received another Article 15 on 3 June  1986  for  being
absent from his appointed place of duty from  21-23  May  1986,  for
this infraction he received a reduction in grade and  forfeiture  of
$200 a month for two months.  The portion of the punishment relating
to the forfeiture  was  suspended  and  would  be  remitted  without
further action if not vacated before 1 December 1986.  His new  date
of rank (DOR) as sergeant was 3 June 1986.

      c.  The applicant received an Article 15 on 26 June  1986  for
being absent from his appointed place of duty from 16-18  June  1986
and from  18-23  June  1986,  for  this  infraction  he  received  a
reduction in grade to airman and  restriction  to  the  base  for  a
period of 60 consecutive days.

The commander advised  applicant  of  his  right  to  consult  legal
counsel; present his case to an administrative discharge  board;  be
represented by legal counsel at a board hearing;  submit  statements
in his own behalf in addition to, or in lieu of, the board  hearing;
or waive the above rights after consulting with counsel.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge that the
applicant was repeatedly  counseled  and  issued  several  forms  of
administrative actions in  an  effort  to  bring  his  (applicant’s)
behavior in  compliance  to  Air  Force  standards.   The  commander
further recommended the applicant be  discharged  without  probation
and rehabilitation (P and R).

On 21 July 1986, after consulting with counsel, applicant offered  a
conditional waiver to an administrative discharge  board  contingent
on his receiving a general (under honorable  conditions)  discharge.
On 28 July 1986, he submitted a personal statement.

A legal review was conducted on 21 July  1986  in  which  the  staff
judge advocate recommended the applicant’s waiver be accepted and he
be separated from the Air Force with a general discharge.

On 25 August 1986, the discharge  authority  ordered  the  applicant
discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

Applicant was discharged on 11  September  1986,  in  the  grade  of
airman with a general (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge,  in
accordance  with  AFR  39-10  (Misconduct  -  Pattern   of   Conduct
Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline).  He served a total of six
years, six months and nine days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, states the applicant  contends
that his depression and use of  medication  caused  his  misconduct.
The applicant was initially diagnosed with  an  Adjustment  Disorder
(situationally based symptoms of depressed mood); however,  at  this
time he was  undergoing  disciplinary  action.   The  applicant  was
evaluated by Mental Health.  The evaluation revealed  the  applicant
did not have any mental health issues that would  prevent  him  from
knowing right from wrong or that he could not control  his  behavior
or understand  the  consequences  of  his  actions.   In  fact,  the
evaluation concluded the applicant was not depressed at the time  of
the evaluation.  There is no clear evidence the applicant  was  AWOL
due his medication.  Even if the applicant had been  diagnosed  with
an  Adjustment  Disorder   the   commander   has   the   option   to
administratively discharge the applicant for  unsuitability,  or  in
this case, misconduct.  The Medical Consultant further states  there
was no mental health diagnosis made following the formal  evaluation
and therefore, the discharge for  misconduct  was  accomplished  and
appropriate.

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

AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not submitted any  evidence  nor
identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the  processing
of his discharge.  Based upon the documentation in  the  applicant's
file, they believe his discharge was consistent with the  procedural
and substantive requirements of the discharge  regulations  of  that
time.  Also, the discharge was within the sound  discretion  of  the
discharge authority.  Also, he did not provide any facts to  warrant
an upgrade of his discharge.  Based on the information and  evidence
provided they recommend the applicant's request be  denied  (Exhibit
D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the  applicant
on 14 February 2003, for review and response.  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.  We took notice  of
the applicant's complete submission in judging  the  merits  of  the
case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation  of  the
Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis  for  our  decision
that the applicant has failed to sustain  his  burden  that  he  has
suffered either an error or an injustice.   The  applicant  contends
that  he  was  suffering  from  depression  and  this   caused   his
misconduct.  He further contends that he was not properly diagnosed.
 We note that after the applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) in
June 1986, his commander referred him for a mental evaluation.   The
mental health evaluation revealed the applicant  did  not  have  any
mental health issues that  would  prevent  him  from  distinguishing
between right and wrong or that he could not control his behavior or
understand the consequences  of  his  actions.   The  mental  health
evaluation further revealed the applicant was not depressed  at  the
time of the evaluation.  Therefore, based on  the  documentation  in
the applicant's records, it  appears  that  the  processing  of  the
discharge and the characterization of the discharge were appropriate
and accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy.  The applicant
has not established to our satisfaction that he has been the  victim
of an error or injustice.  Therefore, 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
BC-2002-03305 in Executive  Session  on  24  April  2003  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
                 Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
                 Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Oct 02.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 27 Dec 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 Feb 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 03.




                                        THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                        Vice Chair