RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01838
            INDEX CODE:  110.00; 110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY DATE:  12 OCTOBER 2005

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  general  discharge  be  upgraded   to   honorable;   his   reenlistment
eligibility (RE) code be changed and upgraded; and his narrative reason  for
separation be changed to “convenience of the government.”
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received letters of recommendation. He was honorably discharged  for  the
sole purpose of reenlistment prior to receiving his general discharge.   His
ability to serve was impaired because of marital,  family,  and  child  care
problems.  Psychiatric problems also impaired his  ability  to  serve.   His
commander abused his authority  when  he  decided  to  give  him  a  general
discharge for unsuitability – apathy  and  defective  attitude.   He  should
have gotten a medical discharge because he was not  medically  qualified  to
serve.

In support of the application, the applicant submits a  copy  of  a  special
order for discharge, a copy of  his  separation  document,  a  copy  of  his
discharge letter, a copy of his selective reenlistment  consideration  form,
and a copy of a special  order  for  promotion.   The  applicant's  complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 16 January 1975, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  at  the
age of 18 for a period of four years in the grade  of  airman  basic  (E-1).
He was progressively promoted to the grade of sergeant (E-4)  effective  and
with a date of rank of 1 October 1978.  He reenlisted  on  3  December  1979
for a period of four years.

The following is a resume of his performance reports,  commencing  with  the
report closing 16 January 1976.

      PERIOD ENDING    OVERALL EVALUATION

      16 January 1976        8
      10 July 1976           8
      09 October 1976        8
      09 October 1977        7
      06 April 1978          9
      13 January 1979        8
      10 August 1979         8
      08 January 1980        7
      17 October 1980        4

On 7 March 1980, the applicant was counseled by his supervisor in regard  to
his attitude toward Noncommissioned Officers.   On  28 April  1980,  he  was
counseled by his supervisor because  he  failed  to  show  for  a  scheduled
flight.  On 16 June 1980,  he  was  counseled  by  his  First  Sergeant  for
failure to  return  overdue  library  books  and  reimbursement  of  tuition
assistance.  On 20 June 1980, he was counseled by  his  First  Sergeant  for
being late for Administrative Officer of the Day duties.  On 20  June  1980,
he was placed on the Control Roster  for  120  days  due  to  the  trend  of
misconduct he had developed at the time.

On 13 July 1980, the applicant was apprehended by the  security  police  for
alleged possession/use of a controlled substance -- marijuana.  On  15  July
1980, he failed to show for a  scheduled  squadron  deployment.   For  these
offenses, on 12 August 1980, he received an Article 15, forfeited $100.00  a
month for two months was ordered into correctional custody for seven days.

On 5 August 1980, he failed to go at the time prescribed  to  his  appointed
place of duty.  For this offense, on 12 August 1980, he received an  Article
15, was ordered to forfeit $75.00, and was reduced  to  airman  first  class
(suspended).  On 7 August 1980, he failed to show for  a  scheduled  flight.
On 29 August 1980, he was counseled by his First Sergeant for violating  the
Air Force leave policy.

On 1 September 1980, he received a traffic ticket for  speeding.   Based  on
this infraction, his commander vacated  the  suspended  portion  of  the  12
August 1980 Article 15  punishment  (reduction  in  grade  to  airman  first
class) and he was reduced to that grade with a date of  rank  of  12  August
1980.

On 2 October 1980, he failed  to  report  to  the  clinic  for  a  scheduled
medical appointment.  On 9 October 1980,  he  was  counseled  by  his  first
sergeant for being out of uniform (he had not  changed  his  grade  insignia
necessitated by his reduction  in  grade).   On  10  October  1980,  he  was
counseled by his supervisor for reporting 1 hour and  15  minutes  late  for
duty.

On 28 October 1980, 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, section A,  paragraph  2-4c,  for  unsuitability  –
apathy defective  attitude.   The  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the
notification  and,  after  consulting  his  appointed  evaluation   officer,
submitted a statement in his own behalf.

On 19 November 1980, a legal review of the discharge case file by the  staff
judge advocate  found  the  file  legally  sufficient  and  recommended  the
applicant be discharged with a general  discharge  without  the  opportunity
for probation  and  rehabilitation.   On  24 November  1980,  the  discharge
authority approved the recommendation  for  discharge  and  directed  he  be
issued  a  General  Discharge  certificate  without  the   opportunity   for
probation or rehabilitation.

On  25  November  1980,  the  applicant  was  discharged   under   honorable
conditions under the provisions of AFR 39-12 (Unsuitable – Apathy  Defective
Attitude).  He had served 5 years, 10 months, and 10 days on active duty.

In response to the Board’s request, the FBI indicated they  were  unable  to
identify an arrest record pertaining  to  the  applicant  on  the  basis  of
information furnished (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant opines no change in the records is warranted.

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  states  there  are  no  mental  health  clinic
records present in the case file for review.  The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant
notes  the  applicant’s  separation  medical  exam  makes  reference  to   a
complaint of loss of memory for which he had been seen in the mental  health
clinic, but on the Report of Medical History the applicant  denied  symptoms
that would be  indicative  of  mental  illness  including  frequent  trouble
sleeping, depression or excessive worry, or nervous  trouble  of  any  sort.
The BCMR Medical Consultant observes the applicant indicated his health  was
good  on  his  Dental  Patient  History  form  dated  6 August  1980.    The
Department of Veterans Affairs Rating Decisions indicate denial  of  service
connection for bipolar anxiety disorder and post traumatic  stress  disorder
based on their review of the service medical records  not  showing  evidence
of presence of these conditions in service.   The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant
states the available medical evidence is insufficient to conclude  that  the
applicant suffered from a psychiatric condition  that  caused  his  problems
leading to discharge and that  further,  the  condition  was  of  sufficient
severity to impair his ability to know  right  from  wrong  and  choose  the
right.  The BCMR Medical  Consultant  concludes  the  preponderance  of  the
evidence indicates that action and disposition in this case are  proper  and
equitable reflecting compliance with Air  Force  directives  that  implement
the law.

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On  8  October  2004,  the  applicant  was  invited  to  submit  information
pertaining to his post-service  accomplishments.   In  his  letter  dated  2
November 2004, the applicant  states  he  has  been  a  good  citizen  since
departing military service.  He has worked with the  homeless  and  homeless
veterans helping them find shelter, food, clothing and  transportation,  and
has directed them to other agencies for assistance.  He  also  assists  with
troubled youth, youth  church  groups,  and  the  American  Red  Cross.   He
attached four (4) support letters, and  copies  of  the  same  documents  he
provided with his application as stated in his  contentions  above  (Exhibit
E).

On 1 February 2005, a copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s  evaluation  was
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment.  As of  this  date,  this
office has received no response to this correspondence (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  Evidence has not  been  presented
that would lead us to believe the  applicant’s  discharge  was  improper  or
contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the  governing  directive.   The  reasons
discharge  proceedings  were  initiated  against  the  applicant  are   well
documented in the record.  As to the applicant’s contentions concerning  his
medical condition at  the  time  of  his  separation,  he  has  provided  no
evidence that would overcome the detailed assessment of this matter  by  the
BCMR Medical Consultant.  Other than his own assertions,  we  have  seen  no
evidence by the applicant indicating that he did  not  commit  the  offenses
cited by his commander as bases for the discharge  action,  his  substantial
rights were violated, his commanders abused their  discretionary  authority,
or, on the basis of his record, a different characterization of his  service
than the one he received was warranted.  Therefore,  we  have  no  basis  to
find that his discharge under honorable conditions because of  unsuitability
was erroneous or unjust.  We have noted the  character  references  provided
by the  applicant  in  support  of  the  appeal.   While  laudatory  of  the
applicant’s character, based on the limited scope of the comments  contained
in the letters, they do not, in our estimation, provide a  sufficient  basis
to upgrade his discharge to fully honorable in view of the  seriousness  and
multiplicity of his infractions against the good  order  and  discipline  of
the service.  Since we are not inclined to  upgrade  the  character  of  the
applicant’s discharge or to change the involuntary nature of and reason  for
his separation, there is no basis to change his RE code.   Accordingly,  the
applicant’s requests are not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of probable 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-2004-
01838 in Executive Session on 5 May 2005 under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

            Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
            Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Member
            Ms. Sue A. Lumpkins, Panel Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 June 2004, w/atch.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Med Consultant, dated 31 Jan 2005.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Oct 2004, w/atch;
              Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Feb 2005, w/atch.




            RICHARD A. PETERSON
            Panel Chair