RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00060

                 COUNSEL:  None

                 HEARING DESIRED:  YES
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  under  other  than  honorable  conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge  be
upgraded to an honorable, type of separation be changed to retirement,
the narrative reason changed to “Quality Force Reduction”, the reentry
code (RE) be changed to “1A”, and he be promoted to the grade of chief
master sergeant (E-9).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His unit commander misconstrued his authority under “The Quality Force
Program.”  He believes his pay grade  should  be  E-9,  command  chief
master sergeant retired.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  18  June  1979  for  a
period of 4 years and was  progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of
master sergeant. The applicant was discharged from the Air Force on 18
December 1990 under the provisions of AFM 39-12 (Request for Discharge
in lieu of Court-Martial) and received an under other  than  honorable
conditions (UOTHC) discharge.  He also had prior active  service  with
the United States Army from 20 December 1973 to 12 December 1977.   He
served 15 years, 5 months and 24 day total active military service.


On 16 November 1990, the applicant’s commander preferred Court-Martial
charges against him.  In February 1990, with the intent to deceive, he
made an official false statement that he arrived at the  scene  of  an
unannounced alarm activation, whereas he did not respond to the  alarm
at all; on  divers  occasions  between     20  December  1989  and  15
September  1990  he  was  charged  with  acts   of   maltreating   his
subordinates who were subject  to  his  orders  and  making  offensive
comments  of  a  sexual  nature  during  open  ranks  to  his   female
subordinates; on divers occasions  between      1  June  1989  and  15
September 1990, used government vehicles for personal use and had  his
subordinates perform personal errands; derelict in the performance  of
his duties by failing to remain awake and alert while on duty and  was
unavailable to perform normal flight duties; and on  divers  occasions
between 1 October 1988 and 31 December 1989, committed  adultery.   He
underwent a command-directed mental  health  evaluation  in  September
1990 and was found to be mentally competent.   After  consulting  with
military defense counsel, applicant submitted a request for  discharge
in lieu of trial by court-martial on 4 December 1990.  The base  legal
office reviewed the case and found it  to  be  legally  sufficient  to
support the discharge and recommended acceptance of  the  request  for
discharge  with  an  under  than   honorable   conditions   discharge.
Additionally, his commander recommended acceptance of his request with
a UOTHC discharge.  The Discharge Authority approved the discharge and
ordered a UOTHC discharge on 14 December 1990.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and states based upon the  documentation
in the file the discharge  was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge  regulation.   Additionally,
the discharge was within the discretion of  the  discharge  authority.
The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify  any  errors
or   injustices   that   occurred   in   the   discharge   processing.
Additionally, he provided  no  facts  warranting  an  upgrade  of  his
discharge.  Accordingly, they recommend his records  remain  the  same
and his request be denied.  He has not filed a timely request.

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRRP  recommended  denial  and  states  that  there   were   no
injustices or irregularities that occurred with applicant’s  discharge
processing.  At the time of his discharge, there were no provisions of
law that allowed for retirement with less  than  20  years  of  active
service.  Even if there had been, applicant would have been ineligible
to apply based on the fact he was pending separation in lieu of court-
martial.

Section 8914, Title 10, United State Code, provides that  an  enlisted
member must have 20 years of total  active  federal  military  service
(TAFMS) to be eligible to voluntarily retire.  Applicant did not  have
20 years of service at the time of his discharge, as evidenced by  his
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

The Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) was enacted  into  law
by the FY93 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to  provide  the
Secretary of Defense a temporary additional force management tool with
which to affect the drawdown of military forces.   However,  authority
to use this provision of law was not given to the  Air  Force  by  the
Department of Defense (DoD) until 12 March 1993.

Applicant is not eligible to be retired under the  15-year  retirement
program because it was not enacted into law until FY93  by  the  NDAA.
Additionally, based on  the  fact  applicant  was  pending  separation
action in lieu of court-martial, he would not have  been  eligible  to
apply for retirement under the 15-year retirement program.

AFPC/DPPRRP complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant’s spouse reviewed the Air Force evaluations  and  stated
that the discharge processing was probably handled properly,  however,
there has been a grave injustice committed here.

After many  years  of  roller  coaster  behavior,  the  applicant  was
diagnosed with Bipolar 1 disorder.   The  reports  indicate  that  the
applicant has had this condition since his early thirties.  Typically,
it started out as one manic  episode  per  year  followed  by  extreme
depression, without proper medication these  episodes  eventually  get
worse.  She feels that if the applicant were properly diagnosed in the
mid eighties when this disease began to manifest itself, the applicant
could have been placed on the proper medications and  retired  without
events  from  the  United  States  Air  Force  and/or  been  medically
discharged.   The  applicant  underwent   a   complete   psychological
evaluation in 1986 by the request of  Major  Grady  in  Ankara  Turkey
after the applicant was involved in a manic episode where he struck an
officer.   According  to  his  medical  records,   his   psychological
evaluation was poor.   This  finding  should  have  been  followed  up
accordingly.  It wasn’t.  From hyper sexual comments and behavior,  to
imagining alarm activation’s and finally not being able to stay  awake
from sheer emotional  and  physical  exhaustion  that  this  condition
leaves one in.  Once again, the applicant was  given  a  psychological
evaluation in December of 1990 by the United States Air Force and  was
found competent.

The actions, which led the applicant to be  discharged,  were  clearly
part of a disorder that the Air Force knew he had or was negligent  in
determining that he had.   We  contend  that  if  the  Air  Force  was
dishonorable to the applicant, a man who has served his  country  from
the age of seventeen, and  ask  that  his  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable and his discharge changed to retirement based on  the  dates
of his service.   She  has  also  submitted  a  psychiatric  emergency
service discharge information/referral sheet.

Applicant’s spouse's complete response with attachment, is at  Exhibit
F.
_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.  After a thorough
review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission,  we  are
not persuaded that  his  discharge,  type  of  separation,  narrative
reason, and reentry code should be  changed  or  that  he  should  be
promoted to the grade of chief master sergeant.  His contentions  are
duly noted; however, evidence has not been  presented  to  show  that
actions taken to discharge him  were  improper  or  contrary  to  the
provisions of the directive under which it was effected, or that  the
characterization of his service was not based on  the  circumstances,
which existed at the time and resulted from his own  misconduct.   We
noted the applicant's contention that a  bi-polar  medical  condition
was the cause for his pattern of misconduct.  However, he has  failed
to provide sufficient medical documentation substantiating that  this
condition contributed to his  pattern  of  misconduct  prior  to  his
discharged from the Air Force.  If he can furnish such documentation,
we are willing to reconsider his application.  In view of the  above,
we have no basis exists to grant favorable action on his request.

4.    The applicant's case is adequately documented  and  it  has  not
been shown that a personal appearance with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s)   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.


_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of a 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-2003-
00060 in Executive Session on 6 May 2003, under the provisions of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
                 Mr. Vaughn Schlunz, Member
                 Ms. Mary J. Johnson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Dec 02.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 27 Jan 03.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 21 Feb 03
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Feb 03.
      Exhibit F. Applicant’s Spouse Response, undated.






      ROSCOE HINTON, JR
      Panel Chair