RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-03910
            INDEX CODE 128.00
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reimbursed for all his uniforms,  including  dress  blues,  four
sets of 1505s, three sets of fatigues, all insignias,  patches,  caps,
hats, belts and accessories [approximately $29.62].

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In 1968, the  Discharge  Review  Board  (DRB)  changed  the  discharge
authority from AFM 39-12 to AFM 39-10. He should not have been made to
forfeit his uniforms or pay for uniforms he did not have at the  time.
His uniforms were improperly confiscated and he was improperly  docked
$29.62. His request is late because, among other things, he  has  been
preoccupied obtaining  a  rating  for  his  back  condition  and  post
traumatic stress disorder  (PTSD)  and  trying  unsuccessfully  to  be
awarded the Air Medal.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for four years  on  28
Jul 65 and was promoted to sergeant on 1 May 67.

The applicant self-referred for psychiatric evaluation  on  3 Feb  68,
complaining of chronic  apathy  as  well  as  suicidal  and  homicidal
ruminations. According to a 5 Feb 68  psychiatric  certification,  the
applicant was certified as having a schizoid personality,  “.  .  .  a
character and behavior disorder of life-long  duration  which  is  not
amenable to psychiatric or other medical treatment or to  disciplinary
action or reassignment.” Separation was recommended.

On 7 Feb 68, the commander notified the applicant  of  his  intent  to
recommend an honorable discharge under AFM 39-12.  Legal  review  that
same date noted the applicant consulted counsel and waived  his  right
to an administrative  discharge  board.  An  honorable  discharge  was
recommended, the Staff Judge Advocate concurred and, on 7 Feb 68,  the
discharge authority approved the honorable discharge.

The applicant was honorably discharged in the grade of sergeant  on  9
Feb 68 under the provisions of AFM 39-12, para.  2-4b  (Unsuitability-
Character/Behavior Disorders) after 2 years, 6 months and 12  days  of
active service.

A DD Form 362, Statement of  Charges  for  Government  Property  Lost,
Damaged or Destroyed, dated 9 Feb 68, charged the applicant $29.62 for
various uniform articles. Cause for the charge was “Loss  in  shipment
or thru neglect.”  [See Exhibit A]

On 20 Feb 68, the applicant applied to the DRB to change the discharge
authority from AFM 39-12, Unsuitability, to AFM 39-10, Convenience  of
the Government. On 18 Jul  68,  the  applicant  and  counsel  appeared
before the DRB. The applicant  indicated  he  became  depressed  while
stationed at Okinawa as an aircraft technician because  he  wanted  to
travel and felt he could be of better  use  in  Vietnam.  He  did  not
commit an offense and did not feel he should have  been  punished  for
talking to a doctor about transient feelings.

On 18 Jul 68, the DRB changed the discharge authority from AFM  39-12,
para. 2-4b, to AFM  39-10,  para.  3-8q  (Convenience  of  Government-
Directed by HQ USAF). The applicant was  notified  on  25 Jul  68  and
provided a corrected DD Form 214.

On 23 Sep 68, the applicant requested the  Air  Force  Accounting  and
Finance Center (HQ AFAFC - now DFAS) reimburse him for the $29.62.  On
14 Oct 68, HQ AFAFC advised him that AFM 39-12  required  uniforms  be
taken from enlisted personnel  discharged  under  this  provision.  On
10 Nov 68, he forwarded a copy of the DRB’s 25 Jul 68 letter notifying
him of the amended discharge authority. [See Exhibit A]  The available
records do not contain a response or any other  information  regarding
this issue.

The applicant has  attempted  unsuccessfully  over  the  years  to  be
awarded the Air Medal.  The  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  Personnel
Council (SAFPC) denied his request in Apr 01 and again in Oct 02.

_________________________________________________________________

DFAS EVALUATION:

DFAS-POCC/DE advises  that  the  applicant’s  records  are  no  longer
available  to  verify  if  he  was  reimbursed  in  1968.   Based   on
nonavailability of records to verify if the applicant did or  did  not
receive reimbursement for his uniforms, the request should be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF DFAS EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 13 Feb 04 for review and comment within 30 days.   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. After a thorough  review  of  the
evidence  of  record  and  the  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded he should  be  refunded  for  all  his  uniforms,  etc.  The
applicant advised HQ AFAFC that  the  provision  under  which  he  was
discharged had been changed. However, as noted by DFAS,  there  is  no
way  to  determine  at  this  late  date  whether  the  applicant  was
reimbursed or not as his records contain  no  such  documentation.  In
view of the above and absent persuasive 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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 23 March 2004 under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
                 Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-03910 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Oct 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, DFAS, dated 4 Feb 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Feb 04.





                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair