RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00745
            INDEX CODE:  100.3, 100.06

      XXXXXXXXXXXX     COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXXXXXXX     HEARING DESIRED: YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  4 SEP 2006


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  reenlistment  eligibility  (RE)  code,  narrative  reason  for
separation and separation code be changed.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The codes and comments  are  overly  negative  and  incorrect.   He
believes there was commander intervention that was  detrimental  to
his case.  He has been a good citizen since his discharge.

In support  of  his  request,  the  applicant  submits  a  personal
statement, DD Form 214, Certificate of Release  or  Discharge  from
Active Duty, a Character Reference letter from  his  Army  National
Guard supervisor and documents related to his military service.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman  basic
on 17 July 1970.

On 20 November 1985, the applicant was notified  by  his  commander
that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force for  a
condition  that  interferes  with  military  service;  specifically
character and behavior disorders.  The basis for the action was  on
4 November 1985, the applicant was diagnosed with  having  atypical
personality disorder as manifested by exceptionally  poor  judgment
and possible  criminal  behavior.   This  disorder  was  determined
severe enough that his ability to  function  in  the  military  was
significantly impaired.

He was advised of his rights in this matter and elected to submit a
conditional waiver of his rights associated with an  administrative
board  hearing.   The  waiver  was  contingent  on  the   applicant
receiving no less  than  an  honorable  discharge.   The  discharge
authority approved the conditional waiver and directed an honorable
discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

On 28 January 1986, he was discharged with an honorable  discharge,
under the provisions of AFR  39-10,  Administrative  Separation  of
Airmen,  (conditions  that  interfere  with  military   service-not
disability-character and behavior disorder).

He received an RE code  of  2C  “Involuntarily  separated  with  an
honorable   discharge;   or   entry   level   separation    without
characterization of service”.  He served 15 years, 6 months and  12
days total active service.

Pursuant  to  the  Board’s   request,   the   Federal   Bureau   of
Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 12 May 2005,  that,  on
the basis of data furnished, they are unable to  locate  an  arrest
record.  (Exhibit G)

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.   DPPRS  states  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, the  applicant  did  not
submit any new evidence or identify any errors or  injustices  that
occurred in the discharge processing, nor did he provide any  facts
warranting a change to his DD Form 214.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial.   The   Medical
Consultant states a  review  of  the  discharge  package  finds  no
evidence of error or injustice.  The mental health report  contains
sufficient  detail  to  support  the  diagnosis  rendered  and  the
recommendation for discharge under provisions of unsuitability  due
to character and behavior disorder.  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 D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the DPPRS advisory  and  states  he  was
charged with disorderly conduct and then his commander assigned  as
an assistant dormitory manager at a female dormitory,  which  would
not be the proper place to assign an  individual  who  is  honestly
thought to be a peeper.  He believes his commander was  more  upset
about other things and used this reason to discharge him.  The area
defense counsel was too busy working high  profile  drug  cases  to
give him proper counsel and thus he made an erroneous  decision  to
get out when he did.

He firmly believes that the charges against him and his  subsequent
discharge were wrong and the RE code and narrative reason on his DD
Form 214 should be changed.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit H.

The applicant responded to the BCMR Medical  Consultant’s  advisory
and states that he is currently in the National Guard serving a one
year tour in Afghanistan and is trying to get an appointment as  an
active guard reserve (AGR), which is much different  than  fulltime
active duty military.

The actions of his commander were not consistent with  the  charges
and allegations that he was trying to  charge  him  with.   He  was
doing nothing more than trying to stay in shape  and  inadvertently
ended up in the wrong place at  the  wrong  time  and  was  falsely
accused.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit I.

___________________________________________________________________

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.  We took notice of
the applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the
case; however, we agree with the opinions  and  recommendations  of
the Air Force offices of primary  responsibility  and  adopt  their
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'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  issue(s)  involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

___________________________________________________________________



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 AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2005-00745 in Executive Session on 24  August  2005,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Member
                 Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Feb 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 8 Apr 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 5 Jul 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Apr 05.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Jul 05.
    Exhibit G.  FBI Response, dated 12 May 05.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Jul 05.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Aug 05.




                                   KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                   Panel Chair