RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03966

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    His general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.    His narrative reason for discharge be changed to medical.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was discharged from the Air Force with no concerns as to his physical  or
mental problems.

The applicant states that he had a  lot  of  physical,  mental,  and  social
problems while he was in the military.  He did not know how to ask for  help
and no one offered him any help.  Not  long  after  he  was  discharged,  he
started having the same problems that he had in the service;  however,  this
time, he had no money for medical help.   The  Air  Force’s  and  the  DVA’s
failure to diagnose and/or treat his herpes has caused him  unncessary  pain
and suffering.

In support of the appeal, the applicant submits a copy of his Department  of
Veterans Affairs (DVA)  medical  records,  which  includes  a  copy  of  his
service medical record.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the  Regular  Air  Force  (RegAF)  on  30 November
1978.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5).

On 31 March 1983, he reenlisted in the RegAF for a period of four years.

On 3 August 1983, the commander notified the  applicant  of  his  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment under  Article  15  of  the  Uniform  Code  of
Military  Justice  (UCMJ)  for  violating  Articles  134  and  Article   92.
Specifically, for wrongfully possessing marijuana  and  drug  paraphernalia.
After consulting legal counsel, the applicant waived his right  to  a  trial
by  court-martial  and   accepted   the   nonjudicial   punishment.    After
considering  the  applicant’s  oral  submission,  on  9  August  1983,   the
commander determined that he did commit one or more of the alleged  offenses
and imposed nonjudicial punishment consisting of reduction to the  grade  of
airman first class, forfeiture for $75.00 per month for two months,  and  15
consecutive  days  of  extra  duty.  The  applicant  did  not   appeal   the
punishment.

In a letter, dated 16 September 1983, the commander  notified  him  that  he
was recommending his administrative discharge  for  misconduct,  i.e.,  drug
abuse.   Specifically,  for  wrongfully  possessing   marijuana   and   drug
paraphernalia, for which he received an Article 15.   He  acknowledged  that
military counsel had been made available to him and did not waive his  right
to an administrative discharge board (ADB).  In a  letter,  dated  5 October
1983, the applicant waived his right to an ADB contingent upon  his  receipt
of no less than a general discharge.  His waiver was accepted on 4  November
1983.

He underwent a separation physical on  19  September  1983,  and  was  found
qualified for worldwide service/separation.

On 16 November 1983, he was discharged under the  provisions  of  AFR  39-10
(Misconduct - Drug Abuse), with  service  characterized  as  general  (under
honorable conditions).  He completed 4 years, 11  months,  and  17  days  of
active service.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation  (FBI),
Clarksburg,  West  Virginia,  indicated  that  on  the  basis  of  the  data
furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit F).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the  records
is warranted, and states the following:

      a.    Applicant’s service medical record confirms that he  experienced
considerable  difficulty  with  recurrent  peri-anal/peri-rectal   abscesses
consistent with recurrent pilonidal cysts or hidradentis supportive.



      b.     After  his  discharge,  his  recurrent  skin  and  soft  tissue
infections were diagnosed as hidradentis.  Although this condition  had  the
potential  to  interfere  with  duty,  his  performance   reports   document
excellent duty performance  despite  this  recurring  problem.   Hidradentis
supportive is currently a diagnosis that requires  a  review  by  a  Medical
Evaluation Board (MEB) to determine continued fitness for duty but does  not
automatically render a member unfit leading to disability discharge.

      c.    Applicant’s  episode  of  streptococcal  pharyngitis  associated
Steven’s Johnson Syndrome did  not  result  in  any  chronic  sequelae  that
impaired his ability to perform his duties.

      d.    There is no evidence of mental disorder  while  on  active  duty
that would have warranted referral into the disability system.  Symptoms  of
depressed mood  and  anxiety  are  commom  in  the  setting  of  involuntary
separation and are not a reason for disability evaluation.

      e.    The mere presence of a physical defect  or  condition  does  not
qualify a member for disability retirement or  discharge.   It  must  render
the member unfit for duty, and their military  career  must  have  been  cut
short due to the service-connected disability.   In  the  applicant’s  case,
his career was cut short by  misconduct,  not  medical  problems.   Further,
members who  are  pending  separation  under  provisions  that  authorize  a
characterization of service of UOTHC, even if  the  actual  characterization
that the member receives is general, are not eligible for referral into  the
disability evaluation system unless the medical  impairment  or  extenuating
circumstances may be the cause of the misconduct.

The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD recommends the application be denied and  states,  in  part,  that
the  applicant  has  failed  to  provide  documentation  that  an  error  or
injustice occurred at the time of his involuntary  administrative  discharge
generated under the provisions of AFR 39-10.  AFPC/DPPD  further  recommends
the applicant pursue compensation and medical treatment from the  Department
of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for his service-connected  medical  conditions  as
authorized under the provisions of Title 38, United States Code.  While  the
applicant  was  treated  for  various  medical  conditions  throughout   his
military career, the preponderance of evidence does not  show  his  military
career was curtailed or shortened  as  a  result  of  an  unfitting  medical
problem.  His records indicate he was reasonably capable of  performing  his
military duties as a Special Purpose Vehicle Mechanic  right  up  until  his
release from active duty.

The AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Complete  copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 16 Jun 2003 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 an error or an injustice.   After  reviewing  the  evidence  of
record, we are not persuaded that the relief requested  should  be  granted.
The  applicant  has  not  established  that   his   commander   abused   his
discretionary authority when initiating discharge action  against  him.   In
regard to his request for a medical discharge,  as  indicated  by  the  BCMR
Medical Consultant, none of the applicant’s medical conditions rendered  him
unfit for duty, it was his misconduct which caused him to be separated  from
the service.  Therefore, we agree with the comments and  recommendations  of
the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our  decision  that
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In view  of
the above findings, 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 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  BC-2002-03966
in Executive Session on 17 September 2003, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member
                       Ms. Patricia Kelly, Member


The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Dec 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 13 May 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 11 Jun 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Jun 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Req for FBI Report, dated 17 Jul 03.




                                   PEGGY E. GORDON
                                   Panel Chair