RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02356
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  1 NOVEMBER 2005

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to Honorable.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His separation was based on a medical condition  and  not  anything  he  did
wrong.  There has been many questions as to  his  character  of  separation.
He is entitled to some VA benefits based on his condition.   In  support  of
the application, the applicant submits a copy of his separation document.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 5 March 1979, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the  age
of 20 in the grade of Airman  Basic  for  a  period  of  4  years.   He  was
subsequently promoted to the rank of Airman First Class with a date of  rank
of 3 December 1980.  The applicant received four Airman Performance  Reports
(APRs), in which the overall evaluations were 7, 8, 7 and 6.

On 3 December 1979, the applicant received an Article  15  for  being  drunk
and disorderly.  For this incident, he was reduced to the  grade  of  airman
basic, and forfeited $100 for 1 month.

On 1 September 1981, he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for  reporting
late for duty.  On 15 September 1981, he  received  a  Letter  of  Reprimand
(LOR) because he failed to go to his appointed place of  duty  at  the  time
prescribed.  An Unfavorable Information File (UIF) was established.

On 19 February 1982, he was unruly, disrespectful,  and  did  use  profanity
when directed to perform shop cleanup. For this  incident,  he  received  an
LOR and his name was placed on the control roster.   On  6  March  1982,  he
received an LOC because  he  failed  to  maintain  proper  status  while  on
standby duty.  On 9 April 1982, he received an  LOC  for  sleeping  on  duty
during roll call.

In a Mental Health evaluation dated 15 April 1982, the chief, mental  health
clinic opined  the  applicant  was  not  amenable  to  treatment,  transfer,
disciplinary  action,  training  or  reclassification  to  another  type  of
military duty.  The examiner diagnosed the  applicant  as  having  a  mental
disorder as contained in the Diagnostic and  Statistical  Manual  of  Mental
Disorders (DSM-III) for Other Personality Disorder 301.89.

On 21 June 1982,  the  applicant’s  commander  notified  him  that  she  was
recommending he be discharged from the Air Force under  AFM  39-12,  Chapter
2, Section A for unsuitability.  After consulting  military  legal  counsel,
the applicant declined to submit statements  on  his  behalf.   On  21  June
1982, the applicant’s commander forwarded the recommendation  to  the  group
commander.  The  commander  further  recommended  he  be  issued  a  General
Discharge certificate.  The discharge case file was reviewed  by  the  staff
judge advocate on 7 July 1982, and  found  legally  sufficient.   The  staff
judge  advocate  forwarded  the  discharge  case  file  for  review  to  the
discharge authority.   The  discharge  authority  approved  the  recommended
separation and directed the applicant be discharged  without  the  offer  of
probation and rehabilitation and issued a General Discharge certificate.

On 13 July 1982, the applicant was discharged  under  honorable  conditions,
in the grade of airman first class, under the provisions of AFM  39-12,  for
unsuitability – personality disorder.  He had served 3 years, 4  months  and
9 days on active duty, to include 1 year, 11 months and 25 days  of  foreign
service.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation  (FBI)
provided a copy of an  investigative  report  pertaining  to  the  applicant
(Identification Record No. 173992EA0, which is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

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

The BCMR Medical Consultant states a review of the records  shows  that  the
applicant’s  commander  based  discharge  on  both  unsuitability   due   to
personality disorder and a pattern of misconduct.   AFM  39-12  specifically
allows  for  a  general  characterization  of  service  for  members   being
discharged for personality  disorder;  paragraph  2-3  Types  of  Discharges
Permitted:  “An airman discharged for unsuitability under this section  will
be furnished an honorable discharge certificate unless the  military  record
warrants the issuance of a general discharge.  The fact that  an  airman  is
being discharged for unsuitability, will not, in itself, constitute a  basis
for determining that the airman should receive  a  general  rather  than  an
honorable discharge (see  paragraphs  1-24c  and  d).”   Elsewhere  in  this
discharge regulation  is  guidance  regarding  characterization  of  service
including “The issuance  of  an  honorable  discharge  is  conditioned  upon
proper military  behavior  and  proficient  performance  of  duty  with  due
consideration for the airman’s age, length of  service,  grade  and  general
aptitude.”, and “A general discharge is a  separation  from  the  Air  Force
under honorable conditions.  Ordinarily, an airman will be issued a  general
discharge if the military record is not sufficiently meritorious to  warrant
an honorable discharge.”  The BCMR Medical  Consultant  states  evidence  of
the record shows the applicant was diagnosed  with  a  personality  disorder
that was unsuiting for continued military service and that  the  applicant’s
commander acted within  his  discretionary  authority  to  characterize  his
service as general.   The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  concludes  action  and
disposition in this case are  proper  and  equitable  reflecting  compliance
with Air Force directives that implement the law.  A complete  copy  of  the
evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  for
review and comment on 3 August 2005.  On 16 August 2005, the  applicant  was
invited to submit information pertaining  to  his  post-service  activities.
On 25 August 2005, a copy of the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigations  (FBI)
report was forwarded to the applicant.  As of this  date,  this  office  has
received no response to any of the before-mentioned 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.   In  addition,  in  view  of  the
applicant’s apparent involvement with civilian  law  enforcement  since  his
separation and absent  other  evidence  by  the  applicant  attesting  to  a
successful post  service  adjustment,  we  are  not  inclined  to  favorably
consider his request based on clemency.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issues involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.
________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice 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 4 October 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Panel Member
                 Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Panel Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  AFBCMR  Docket  Number
BC-2005-02356:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Jun 04 w/atch.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant’s available Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Med Consultant, dated 1 Aug 05.
      Exhibit D.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Aug 05; AFBCMR, dated
                 16 Aug 05 and 25 Aug 05 w/atch.
      Exhibit E.  FBI Report.








            B. J. WHITE-OLSON
            Panel Chair