RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00141
            INDEX CODES:  108.00, 121.02,
                                               123.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect that he is entitled to payment for
lost time from 24 Nov 70 to 4 Feb 71 and six  (6)  days  of  forfeited
accrued leave.

By amendment, his administrative discharge be  changed  to  a  medical
discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The  upgrading  of  his  under   other   than   honorable   conditions
(undesirable) discharge to general warrants payment for his lost  time
and forfeited accrued leave.

In support of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  copies  of  his
separation documents and a letter  from  the  Department  of  Veterans
Affairs (DVA).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Available military  personnel  records  indicate  that  the  applicant
enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 6 Jul 70 for  a  period  of  four
years.

On 4 Dec 70, the applicant was convicted by Special  Court-Martial  of
failure to go, disrespectful in language to a noncommissioned  officer
(NCO), assaulting an NCO by lunging at him, and being  absent  without
leave (AWOL).  The approved sentence included forfeiture of $50.00 per
month for six (6) months and confinement at hard labor for 90 days.

On  5  Mar  71,  court-martial  charges  were  preferred  against  the
applicant for failure to obey a lawful order to  report  to  his  duty
section.

On 8 Mar 71, he requested a discharge for the good of the service.

On 11 Mar 71, the commander recommended that the  applicant's  request
for discharge be approved and that  he  be  furnished  an  undesirable
discharge.

On 31 Mar 71, the discharge authority approved the applicant's request
for discharge  and  directed  that  he  be  furnished  an  undesirable
discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 2 Apr 71 under the provisions of AFM 39-12
with an undesirable discharge.  He was credited with 6 months, and  11
days of active service, with 76 days of lost time.

On 6 Jun 77, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) upgraded the
applicant’s  undesirable  discharge  to   general   (under   honorable
conditions).

On 31 Mar 78, the  AFDRB  denied  the  applicant’s  request  that  his
general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPW provided a technical advisory to AFPC/DPPRS  indicating  they
have determined that the applicant was charged with a total of 73 days
of lost time from 24 Nov 70 to 4  Feb  71  as  a  result  of  military
confinement.  He was charged three (3) days of lost time from 2 Nov 70
to 4 Nov 70 as a result of being AWOL.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPW evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS indicated that based upon the documentation  in  the  file,
they believe that the applicant’s discharge was  consistent  with  the
procedural and substantive requirements of the  discharge  regulation,
and was with the discretion of the discharge authority.

According to AFPC/DPPRS, the applicant did not submit any new evidence
or identify any errors or injustices that occurred  in  the  discharge
processing.  He did not request further upgrade of his  discharge  nor
did he provide any other facts warranting an upgrade.  They  defer  to
the Board for a decision concerning the applicant’s request  for  back
pay for lost time/accrued leave.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

DFAS-POCC/DE  recommended  denial  indicating  that  the   applicant’s
upgraded discharge on 6 Jun 77 would have entitled him to  payment  of
the six (6) days of accrued leave  forfeited  at  separation,  but  no
payment of lost time.  The correction of record files from 1977 are no
longer available to determine if, in fact, the applicant was paid  for
the accrued leave.  Based on the fact that the  applicant's  discharge
was upgraded in 1977, the Barring Act would apply.

A complete copy of the DFAS-POCC/DE evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory  opinions  and  furnished  a  response
indicating that he had a medical condition which should have warranted
a medical discharge.

Applicant's complete response is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Medical Consultant recommended denial noting that a review by  the
Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)  showed  the  applicant  with
symptoms consistent with "situational reaction," which  is  equivalent
to an adjustment disorder.  An adjustment  disorder  is  an  unsuiting
condition that does not warrant entry into the  Disability  Evaluation
System (DES).  According to the Medical Consultant, the applicant  had
no medical condition that warranted entry into the DES.  In his  view,
the action and disposition in this  case  were  proper  and  equitable
reflecting compliance with Air Force  directives  that  implement  the
law, and no change in the records is warranted.

A complete copy of the Medical Consultant's evaluation is  at  Exhibit
H.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a response which
is attached at Exhibit J.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice regarding the applicant's requests
for the payment for lost time, and that his  administrative  discharge
be changed to a medical discharge.  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 (OPRs) and  adopt  their  rationale  as  the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of
an error or  injustice.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  sufficient
evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to  favorably
grant his requests.

4.  We  have  carefully  reviewed  the  portion  of  the   application
pertaining to the applicant's request  for  payment  of  six  days  of
accrued leave and the entire record, and we  are  not  convinced  that
corrective  action  is  warranted.   We  note  that  the   applicant's
undesirable discharge was upgraded to general in 1977  by  the  AFDRB,
which would have entitled him  to  be  paid  for  the  accrued  leave.
However, as a result of his failure  to  timely  pursue  this  matter,
pertinent  government  payment  records  are  no   longer   available.
Therefore, we are not inclined  to  recommend  favorable  action  that
would entitle him to  payment  of  the  six  days  of  accrued  leave.
Accordingly, we find no compelling basis to grant his request.

5.  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   issues   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 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-
2003-00141 in Executive Session on 23 Sep 03, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
      Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Jan 03,w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPW, dated 27 Mar 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 Apr 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, DFAS-POCC/DE, undated.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Apr 03.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, applicant, dated 12 May 03.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 15 Jul 03.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 Jul 03.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, applicant, dated 9 Aug 03.




                                   JOHN L. ROBUCK
                                   Panel Chair