RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03907
                                             INDEX CODE:  110.00; 110.02
                                             COUNSEL:  None

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  No

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was due to inadequate medical and physiological treatment  for
a chemical dependency that began while on active duty.  The  only  treatment
he received was by a base psychologist for a ten-minute question and  answer
session.  Had he received proper medical  and  psychological  treatment,  he
would still be an active member of the U.S. military  today.   He  has  been
clean and sober for many years and has even given up smoking, which  he  had
started during basic training in 1979.

He has been an exemplary employee of the U.S. Postal Service  for  the  past
11 years and he even put his life on the line for his country by  continuing
to work in a mail processing plant during the anthrax scare of  2001.   This
should be ample proof that his “attitude” is  anything  but  “defective”  as
had been entered on his DD Form 214.  The individuals  responsible  for  his
training and well being are to blame because they failed to provide  medical
and/or psychological attention to a member of their flight.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 10 September 1979, the applicant enlisted in the  Regular  Air  Force  in
the grade of airman basic (E-1) at the age of 18 for a period  of  4  years.
After his successful completion of basic military  and  technical  training,
he was assigned to duties as an apprentice construction equipment  operator.
 Prior to the events under review, he  was  progressively  promoted  to  the
grade of airman first class (E-3), effective and with a date of rank  of  10
September 1980.  He received two Airman Performance Reports (APRs),  closing
13 December 1980 and 15 April 1981, in which the  overall  evaluations  were
“7” and “9,” respectively.

On 4 March 1980, the applicant received a Letter of  Reprimand  for  failing
to report to his duty section at the prescribed time.

On 17 April 1980, he received a letter of Reprimand for  possessing  a  clip
used to hold marijuana cigarettes and possession of marijuana.

On 29 August 1980, he received a letter of counseling for reporting late  to
duty.

On 29 September 1980, he received a letter of  counseling  for  failed  room
inspection.

On 2 October 1980, he received an Article 15 for failure to go at  the  time
prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 18 and 19 September  1980.   He
was ordered to forfeit $50.00 per  month  for  two  months  and  received  a
suspended  reduction  in  grade  to  airman.   On  12  February  1981,   his
previously suspended reduction to  the  grade  of  airman  was  vacated  for
failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place  of  duty  on  2
October 1980.  On 9 March 1981, he  received  a  letter  of  counseling  for
failed room inspection.

In an entry in the applicant’s chronological record of medical  care,  dated
9 March 1981, the examiner indicated  that  the  applicant’s  commander  had
referred the applicant for assessment because of episodes of late for  work.
 The examining physician stated that  there  was  “no  evidence  of  thought
disorder or depression.”  He added that the applicant used poor judgment  at
times, and wanted out of the Air Force.  His  diagnostic  impression  was  a
passive aggressive personality with no  evidence  of  mental  illness.   The
applicant was returned to duty.  The examining physician concluded that  the
“patient knows right from wrong, and is able to adhere to right.”

On 11 March 1981, the received an Article 15 for failure to go at  the  time
prescribed to his appointed place of  duty  on  26 February  1981.   He  was
ordered to forfeit $100.00, and was reduced to the grade  of  airman  basic.
On 31 March 1981, he received a letter of counseling for reporting  late  to
duty.

On 16 April 1981, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant  that  he
was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force  under  the  provisions
of AFM 39-12, Chapter 2, Section A for  unsuitability.   The  applicant  was
advised of his rights.  The applicant acknowledged receipt  of  notification
and waived his rights to consult counsel and submit statements  in  his  own
behalf.  The discharge case file was  reviewed  by  the  Group  Staff  Judge
Advocate,  and  was  found  legally  sufficient.   The  discharge  authority
approved the recommended separation on 23 April 1981 and directed  that  the
applicant be separated  with  a  general  discharge  without  the  offer  of
probation and rehabilitation.

On 24 April 1981, the applicant was discharged  under  honorable  conditions
under the provisions of AFM 39-12 (Unsuitable -- Apathy, Defective  Attitude
-- Board Waiver).  He had served 1 year, 7 months  and  15  days  on  active
duty.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s  request.   DPPPR  stated
that based on the documentation on file in  the  master  personnel  records,
the  discharge  was  consistent  with   the   procedural   and   substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation.   The  discharge  was  within  the
discretion of the discharge authority.  They also note  that  the  applicant
did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors  or  injustices  that
occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no  facts  warranting  an
upgrade of his discharge, and the request is untimely.  A complete  copy  of
this evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded  to  the  applicant  on  19
December 2003 for review and response.  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 error or injustice.  Evidence has not been provided that  would
lead us to believe  the  applicant’s  discharge  was  erroneous  or  unjust.
Other than his own assertions that he was mistreated while  in  the  service
and that he has had a successful post-service adjustment, the applicant  has
provided no evidence supporting these claims or showing  that  the  evidence
in his discharge case file is erroneous, that his  substantial  rights  were
violated, or that his commanders abused their discretionary  authority.   In
the absence of such evidence,  we  have  no  basis  on  which  to  favorably
consider his 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  this  application  BC-2003-
03907 in Executive Session on 11 March 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                  Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
                  Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Nov 03.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, H AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 Dec 03.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Dec 03.




      MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
      Panel Chair