RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03417
                                             INDEX CODE:  100.00
      XXXXXXX                           COUNSEL:  CAROLYN LEE

      XXXXXXX                           HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  6 MAY 2007


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    His discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.    He receive a disability retirement.

3.    His payment for education be recognized.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His behavior that resulted in his discharge was due to a  mental  disability
that was present during his duty.  In addition, he has, and had at his  date
of service, frontal lobe brain disorder.

In support of the appeal, applicant  submits  documentation  concerning  his
Social Security Disability Insurance Claim.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in  the  Regular  Air  Force  on
6 August 1991.  On 15 August 1991, he enrolled in the New  GI  Bill  (NGIB),
later renamed the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB), and acknowledged that  he  must
receive an honorable discharge for service which established entitlement  to
the NGIB. On 13 May  1993,  he  received  notification  that  he  was  being
recommended for discharge for  misconduct  –  conduct  prejudicial  to  good
order and discipline.  The commander’s reasons for the action were  that  on
23 April 1994, he was given  an  order  to  stay  away  from  his  off  base
quarters until the first sergeant gave him permission to return  and  on  or
about 24 to 25 April 1994, he failed to obey the  order  given  to  him  and
returned to his home.  For this offense, he received an  Article  15,  on  6
May 1994, with punishment consisting of reduction to  the  grade  of  airman
with a new date of rank (DOR) of 6 May  1994.   On  16 March  1994,  he  was
involved in a physical altercation with his wife, for which he was  referred
to social actions and placed in track IV of the alcohol  program,  evaluated
by mental health on 15 April 1994,  and  permanently  decertified  from  the
Personnel Reliability Program (PRP).  He underwent a separation physical  on
25 May 1994 and was found qualified for worldwide  service.   The  discharge
authority approved the discharge  and  he  was  discharged  under  honorable
conditions (general) on 5 July 1994,  under  the  provisions  of  AFR  39-10
(Misconduct), and was issued RE code  2B  (Involuntarily  separated  with  a
general discharge).  He had completed a total of 2 years and  11  months  of
active service and was serving in the grade of airman (E-2) at the  time  of
discharge.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change to the  records
is  warranted  and  states,  in  part,  that  the  evidence  indicates  that
applicant had long term problems beginning in childhood that stabilized  and
improved during military service but progressed  following  his  separation.
There  is  no  evidence  his  military  service  aggravated  his  condition.
Further, there  is  no  evidence  that  while  serving  on  active  duty  he
manifested a severe mental illness that impaired his ability to  know  right
from  wrong  or  would  relieve  him  from  the   responsibility   for   and
consequences of his behavior.  The 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:

A complete copy  of  the  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  on
4 October 2005 for review and comments within 30 days.  However, as of  this
date no response has been received by this office.

________________________________________________________________










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  to  warrant  upgrading  the  applicant’s
discharge to honorable and retiring him by reason  of  physical  disability.
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
BCMR Medical Consultant and  adopt  his  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our
conclusion that the applicant has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or
injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,  we  find
no compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

4.  The applicant has also requested  that  his  payment  for  education  be
recognized.  We note that on 15 August 1991, he enrolled in the New GI  Bill
(NGIB), later renamed the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).  However, since he  was
not honorably  discharged,  the  DVA  has  denied  him  benefits  under  the
program.  In view of  our  above  determination  that  no  basis  exists  to
warrant upgrading his discharge to  honorable  and  since  this  program  is
administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) in accordance  with
Title 38, United States Code, Chapter 30, no further action on this  portion
of his application is required.

________________________________________________________________

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  Docket  Number  BC-2004-03417
in Executive Session on 10 November 2005, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member
                 Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member



The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Oct 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 23 Sep 05.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Oct 05.




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair