RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01473
            INDEX CODE:  108.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be changed from honorable to a medical discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was part of an illegal experiment.  His life was  threatened  by  a
sergeant should he not serve his country.  He was given  “speed”  with
strichnide that resulted in temporal lobe epilepsy.  He was discharged
under false conditions and that four others who participated (in  drug
usage) received general discharges.  He has names and he wants a  full
explanation of his DD Form 214.  He has no memory of important events,
then he had proof – except insanity.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant  entered  active  duty  on  29  June  1977  as  a   security
specialist.   His  personnel  record  shows   a   pattern   of   minor
disciplinary infractions including two letters  of  admonishment,  two
letters of counseling,  a  letter  of  reprimand  and  an  Article  15
resulting in a reduction in grade to Airman  Basic  (E-1).   His  only
Airman Performance Report (APR) reflected an  overall  “4”  indicating
marginal duty performance.  He also was disqualified  from  the  Human
Reliability Program (HRP) the qualification of which is  required  for
security personnel.  In May 1978 he complained  of  feeling  depressed
and paranoid and was evaluated in the mental health  clinic.   He  was
diagnosed with situational anxiety and during a subsequent appointment
on 15 May 1978, he admitted to use of hashish.  On 30 August 1978,  he
was honorably discharged, at the convenience of  the  government,  for
marginal performance after serving one year, two months and two  days.


_________________________________________________________________




AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  reviewed  the  entire  case  file  and
recommends denial.  He notes  that  according  to  the  Department  of
Veterans Affairs,  the  applicant,  ten  years  after  separation  and
following separation and divorce from his wife, developed symptoms  of
depression   associated   with   psychotic   features   diagnosed   as
schizophrenia.   The  DVA  denied  the  applicant  service   connected
disability compensation for schizophrenia noting no  evidence  in  his
military record while he was on active duty or during the  presumptive
period (12 months) following discharge.  At his separation physical he
reported he was in good health.

Ten years following discharge he was hospitalized  for  schizophrenia.
Although review of the service medical record  shows  a  complaint  of
depressed mood  and  paranoid  feelings  in  the  context  of  ongoing
occupational problems  and  admitted  drug  use,  there  is  no  other
evidence of mental illness.  Evaluation of those symptoms by a  mental
health professional rendered a diagnosis  of  situational  anxiety,  a
condition that would not warrant disability  evaluation.   Action  and
disposition  in  this  case  were  proper  and  equitable   reflecting
compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.

The medical consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states he was 17 when he joined the Air Force  and  that
he had been an athlete most of his life.  He states when he arrived in
England (on assignment), he was disillusioned and  drugs  and  alcohol
use were rampant.  He never wanted to drink or do drugs  but  all  his
seniors did drugs (to the rank of major).  He contends he  was  “taken
in” (peer  pressure)  and  that  the  drugs  and  alcohol  caused  his
schizophrenia as there is no mental  health  problems  in  his  family
history.  He used alcohol to medicate himself after he separated  from
the service.  He could not diagnose himself and contends the Air Force
was responsible for him from the day he swore his oath.   If  the  Air
Force had forced him into rehab the damage to his brain would not have
occurred.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review  of  the
evidence of record and applicant's submission, we  are  not  persuaded
that his uncorroborated  assertions  of  illegal  experimentation  and
forced drug usage, in and by themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive  to
override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  Therefore, we agree
with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary
responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for  our
decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having
suffered either an error or injustice.  It appears, from the available
medical records and Department of Veterans Affair’s (DVA) files,  that
no evidence of mental illness existed during his period of service but
appeared to manifest itself ten years after his  discharge,  and  then
only when he went through personal trauma related  to  separation  and
divorce.  Therefore, in the absence  of  persuasive  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-
2003-01473 in Executive Session on 2 March 2004, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
      Ms. Martha Maust, Member
      Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Apr 03.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 5 Dec 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Dec 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 16 Jan 04.




                                   ROSCOE HINTON, JR
                                   Panel Chair