RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02091

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable  conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He suffered, and  still  does,  from  major  depressive  disorder  and
anxiety, which he believes led to most of  his  problems  in  the  Air
Force.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 1 Dec 70 for  a  period
of four years.

On 9 Nov 72, the  applicant’s  commander  notified  him  that  he  was
initiating action with a view to effecting the applicant’s  discharge.
The reasons for the action were:  on 22 Sep 72, he was evaluated by  a
psychiatrist and was diagnosed with a personality disorder; on 20  Jan
72, he was counseled concerning his not being ready for an  inspection
(dirty uniform and bad attitude); on 27 Jan 72, he  was  counseled  on
the length of his hair and conforming to AFM 35-10; on 1  Feb  72,  he
was counseled on being late for work and not conforming to AFM  35-10;
on 10 Mar 72, he was given an Article 15 for his failure to report  to
work on time, for which he was reduced to  the  grade  of  airman  and
ordered to forfeit $25.00 per month for two months; on 13 Sep  72,  he
was picked up by the Security Police for having excessively long hair;
on 27 Sep 72, he was given an Article 15 for disobeying a lawful order
to get his haircut, for which he received a suspended reduction to the
grade of airman and ordered to forfeit $25.00; on 10 Oct  72,  he  was
given a referral Airman Performance Report (APR) for  his  substandard
duty performance during the period 2 Oct 71 through  1  Oct  72.   The
applicant was advised that a general discharge would be recommended.

In  the  recommendation  for  discharge,  the  commander   noted   the
psychiatrist and Social Actions Officer reported the applicant  was  a
drug abuser who had reported use of  marijuana,  mescaline,  and  LSD.
The  applicant  had  reported  some  evidence  of   LSD   “flashbacks”
phenomena.  The commander indicated this supported  the  diagnoses  of
personality disorder.  Further, the commander indicated the  applicant
had been counseled several times  by  the  First  Sergeant  and  NCOIC
regarding his ability to adapt to Air Force conditions  to  no  avail.
Also, counseling by Social Actions had had little apparent effect.

On 17 Nov 72, the evaluation officer  advised  the  applicant  of  his
rights, including his right to submit a rebuttal and  make  statements
in his own behalf.  The  applicant  did  not  submit  a  statement  of
rebuttal to the discharge action.

The office of the Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge  case  file
to be legally sufficient and recommended the applicant be furnished  a
general discharge.

On 28 Nov 72, the discharge authority approved  the  discharge  action
and directed that the applicant be furnished a general discharge.

On 5 Dec 72, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of  AFM
39-12 (Character  and  Behavior  Disorder)  and  furnished  a  general
discharge.  He was credited with two years and  five  days  of  active
service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Medical Consultant recommended denial  noting  the  applicant  was
administratively discharged for unsuitability  due  to  a  personality
disorder and drug abuse.  According to the Medical  Consultant,  there
was no evidence the applicant’s misconduct and drug abuse were due  to
depression.   At  the  time  of  his  mental  health  evaluation,  the
applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder and was determined
to know right from wrong and  possess  the  capacity  to  conform  his
behavior  to  law  and  Air  Force  regulations.    In   the   Medical
Consultant’s 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
C.

AFPC/DPPRS  recommended  denial   indicating   that   based   on   the
documentation in the applicant’s records, the discharge was consistent
with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge
regulation, and was within the discretion of the discharge  authority.
In their view, the applicant did not submit any new evidence, identify
any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, or
provide any facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on  30
Jan 04 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (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 an error or injustice warranting an  upgrade  of  the
applicant’s discharge.  We took notice  of  the  applicant's  complete
submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we  agree  with
the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and in particular, the
AFBCMR Medical Consultant, and adopt their rationale as the basis  for
our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden  that
he has suffered either  an  error  or  an  injustice.   Based  on  the
documentation  in  the  applicant's  records,  it  appears  that   the
processing of the discharge and the characterization of the  discharge
were appropriate and accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy.
 Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the  contrary,  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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-02091 in Executive Session on 10 March 2004, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham., Member
                 Ms. Ann-Cecile M. McDermott, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Jun 03.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 17 Nov 03.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 22 Jan 04.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jan 04.




                                   BRENDA L. ROMINE
                                   Panel Chair