RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03858
            INDEX NUMBER:  145.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a medical discharge to  allow
him to receive full benefits from the Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have been medically discharged.  He contends that he informed  his
supervisors of his  drug  use,  depression  and  alcohol  problems  and  was
improperly denied treatment and a medical discharge.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The  applicant  entered  active  duty  2  December  1970,  completed   basic
training, and became a Security  Specialists.   On  26  July  1973,  he  was
convicted by a Special Court-Martial for being absent without  leave  (AWOL)
from 21 March to 1 May 1973.  He was sentenced  to  a  BCD,  confinement  to
hard labor for four months and forfeiture of $150 for  four  months.   After
the legal reviews and hearing by a  clemency  board,  his  discharge  became
effective on  25 February 1974.  He had a previous conviction by  a  Special
Court-Martial on 26 December 1972 for  being  AWOL  from  10  October  to  9
November 1972.  At that time, he was  sentenced  to  hard  labor  for  three
months, forfeiture of $50 per month for  four  months  and  immediate  entry
into the retraining program.  He completed the retraining  program  and  was
in the process of receiving a duty assignment  when  he  went  on  Temporary
Home Patrol due to a death and illness in his family.   However,  he  failed
to return on time.  He voluntarily turned himself in after  being  gone  for
32 days without leave.  He also received four Article 15’s, for  failure  to
repair 17 may 1972; and three for sleeping  on  post,  4  January  1972,  24
January 1972, 16 June 1972, 20 June  1972  and  7  July  1972.   Punishments
included forfeiture of $50, restriction for 14 days and reduction to  airman
(suspended  until  15  August  1972);  however,  after  the  July  incident,
suspension was vacated and he was reduced to airman basic.  He had two  more
incidents of AWOL.  He received a BCD on 25 February 1974  after  serving  2
years, 4 months and 25 days on active duty and a total of three hundred  and
three (303) days of lost time due to AWOL.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed the applicant’s records  and  found  no
basis for a medical discharge, and recommends denial.  The applicant  states
that he suffered from drug  and  alcohol  abuse,  depression  and  diabetes,
which were ignored by his  supervisors  and  psychologists.   That  was  the
reason he could not perform his duties.  His brother died and he states  his
drug addiction worsened aggravating his condition and when  he  sought  help
again from the psychologist he did not get assistance,  felt  neglected  and
went AWOL.  He also states that at age  six  (6)  he  witnessed  his  mother
shooting his father, a “bloody  episode”  that  also  caused  him  emotional
distress at the time he was on active  duty.   “I  felt  ‘unfuncable’  (sic)
still no treatment-just punishment-court-martialed, no treatment.”

Review of the available service medical  records  show  appointments  for  a
variety of minor injuries, viral infections,  upper  respiratory  tract  and
urinary tract infections, and hay fever.  He was seen by the  mental  health
clinic on 31 January 1972, 4, 17, and  22  February  1972,  with  complaints
regarding dissatisfaction with his career field as a security policeman  and
inability  to  sleep   and   poor   appetite.    His   evaluation   included
psychological testing as well as  interview.   The  psychologist  commented;
“has many passive traits which make  it  difficult  for  him  to  adjust  to
field”.  He was diagnosed with “adjustment  reaction  in  passive  dependent
personality”.  The possibility of cross training was  mentioned  in  the  17
February 1972 entry.  On follow up 22 February 1972, the applicant had  been
to the personnel office and learned that before he  could  apply  for  cross
training he must first complete his tour.  The psychologist  treatment  plan
included placing  the  applicant  into  group  therapy  to  help  cope  with
adjustment problems.  The applicant was seen  again  3  July  1972,  in  the
mental health clinic; “has multiple problems  with  adjustment  to  service,
has been into clinic before with similar problems.  The  applicant  did  not
keep his 11 July 1972 mental health appointment.   No  other  mental  health
clinic record entries are present in the available records.

The service medical record has a laboratory report  from  a  drug  screening
urinalysis dated 24 August 1972, which was positive for morphine.   The  lab
report indicates  that  the  applicant  had  prescriptions  for  Valium  and
Darvon.  Darvon will  produce  a  positive  result  on  the  urinalysis  for
morphine.  The service medical record confirms  isolated  prescriptions  for
codeine, Darvon and Valium in the several months preceding  the  urinalysis.
A 29 September 1972 medical record entry, reports  the  positive  urinalysis
report and referral for evaluation by mental health.  Further  documentation
is not available, however this coincides with the  time  the  applicant  was
AWOL leading to his first court martial conviction.

The separation  medical  examination  dated  27  September  1973,  found  no
disease or condition warranting evaluation in the medical disability  system
and noted “frequent trouble sleeping in the past attributed  to  shift  work
and depression attributed to situation”.  The exam also  reported  that  the
applicant denied a history of drug use, and “all other  significant  medical
or surgical history”.

In the available copies of the applicant’s court marital documents there  is
no evidence that symptoms of depression, drug or  alcohol  use  were  raised
either by the applicant or his defense counsel as factors to be  considered.
 In the post trial clemency report, dated 21 August 1973, there is again  no
mention of these issues.  At the 14 November 1973 Court of Military  Review,
the applicant testified that he wanted to be  retained  in  the  Air  Force,
made no mention of problems with drug use or depression and when  describing
his pre-service history stated that when he was  eight  (8)  years  old  his
mother shot at his father but missed.  No formal psychiatric evaluation  was
performed for  the  applicant’s  legal  proceedings  however  the  Court  of
Military Review stated:  “There is no evidence in the record to  negate  the
presumption that the accused had the requisite mental capacity at  the  time
of trial or at the time of the commission of the offenses”.

The applicant applied to the DVA for benefits but  was  denied  because  his
discharge was a bar to payment of  benefits  administered  by  the  VA.   He
appealed that decision claiming insanity at the time of  conviction  of  the
offense, which led to his separation from service.  A DVA  Determination  of
Insanity of Veteran Affecting Discharge dated  17  August  1977,  concluded:
“Vet is not shown to have been laboring under such a defect of  reason  from
disease of the mind or mental deficiency at the time he committed the  acts,
which led to his discharge, that he was unable to comprehend the nature  and
consequences of such acts.  There is no evidence of record that the vet  had
pronounced neuropsychiatric symptomology or evidence of psychosis  while  in
service.”

He appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board  in  November  1976  and
June 1980, both times his applications for upgrade were denied,  concluding:
“no evidence to substantiate that the applicant was a drug addict, that  the
Air Force knew that the applicant was a drug addict, or that his  misconduct
was in any way related to drug addiction.”

The applicant received a bad conduct discharge after a second court  martial
conviction for going AWOL.  He  contends  his  discharge  was  improper  and
inequitable because he was abusing drugs  and  depressed  but  not  afforded
treatment or a medical discharge.  Evidence of the record confirms  that  he
was  experiencing  depressed  mood  diagnosed  as   “adjustment   reaction”.
Adjustment  Disorder  in  today’s   terminology,   and   passive   dependent
personality, maladaptive personality features that may  today  be  diagnosed
as  a  personality  disorder.   Both  Adjustment  Disorder  and  Personality
Disorder are unsuiting conditions that do  not  warrant  evaluation  in  the
disability system but can result in administrative discharge by  a  member’s
commander.  These conditions do not impair an individual’s ability  to  tell
right from wrong or  relieve  them  of  responsibility  for  their  actions.
Although drug or alcohol abuse is not confirmed by  review  of  the  record,
misconduct related to substance abuse is not mitigated  by  such  abuse  and
individuals are held accountable for their actions.  Court  martial  records
including clemency reports make no mention of problems with drug or  alcohol
use.

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  That office indicates the applicant  did  not
submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices  that  occurred
in  the  discharge  processing  and  that    he  provided  no  other   facts
warranting an upgrade of the discharge.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded  to  the  applicant  on  10
June 03, for review and comment within 30  days.   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 an error or injustice  in  regard  to  his  request  that  his
discharge characterization be changed.  After  a  thorough  review  of  the
documentation provided in support of his appeal and the evidence of record,
it is our opinion that given the circumstances surrounding  his  separation
from the Air Force, the discharge given to the applicant was proper and  in
compliance  with  the  appropriate  directives.   We  took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however,
we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices  of
primary responsibility and adopt their  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our
conclusion that the applicant has not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or
injustice.  Other than his own assertions, no evidence  has  been  provided
that would lead us to believe that he reported  to  his  superiors  or  was
medically treated for his alcohol/drug abuse problems while on active duty.
 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 this application  in Executive
Session on 5 August 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
            Mr. Mike Novel, Member
            Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR  Docket  Number
BC-2002-03858:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Feb 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 1 May 03.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 Jun 03.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR , dated 10 Jun 03.




               VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
               Panel Chair