RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00750
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  4 SEP 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded  to  an
honorable discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was discharged for an alleged misconduct due to circumstances beyond  his
control (mental condition).  He has received treatment  for  this  condition
since leaving the service.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 7 September 1982  in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of four years.

On 2 March 1983, the applicant was notified of  his  commander's  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment upon  him  for  the  following:   he  did,  at
Hurlburt Field, Florida, on or about 26 February 1983, steal three rolls  of
film, of some value, the property of the Hurlburt Field Exchange.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his right to a trial  by
court-martial, requested  a  personal  appearance,  and  did  not  submit  a
written presentation.

He was found guilty by his commander who imposed the  following  punishment:
reduction in grade from airman to airman basic, ordered to  forfeit  $100.00
per month for one month.  However, that  portion  of  the  punishment  which
provided for the reduction to the grade of airman basic was suspended  until
1 September 1983, at which time, unless the suspension was  sooner  vacated,
it would be remitted without further action.

The applicant did not appeal the punishment.

A Mental Health Evaluation, dated 5 April 1983, indicates the applicant  was
referred to the Mental Health Clinic by his squadron following  an  incident
of shoplifting.  No mental health disease was found.  The applicant did  fit
the immature disorder category (DSM III  301.89).   The  evaluation  further
indicated there was no evidence  of  mental  defect,  emotional  illness  or
psychiatric disorder as defined by AFR  160-43  of  sufficient  severity  to
warrant disposition through military medical channels.   The  applicant  was
mentally responsible  for  his  behavior  and  possessed  sufficient  mental
capacity to understand and cooperate intelligently as a  respondent  in  any
administrative proceedings which might have involved  him.   At  that  time,
the applicant had no disqualifying mental  disease  or  defect  which  would
have prevented him from performing his duties of his  grade.   Past  history
and present adjustment to the demands of military service was indicative  of
a constricted emotional development which  was  not  commensurate  with  his
chronological age and physical growth.  The applicant was  to  be  continued
to be followed in the Mental Health Clinic by the health  care  provider  to
aid him in dealing with assuming responsibility for  his  own  behavior  and
control of his own behavior.  In regard to the elimination of the  applicant
from the service, it appeared that an essential  consideration  was  whether
or not he was able to perform effective and  useful  service  of  sufficient
value to the Air Force to nullify his deficiencies.  This determination  was
best made within the unit to which the individual was assigned duty.

On 19 April 1985, the applicant was notified of his  commander's  intent  to
initiate discharge action against him for Misconduct -  Conduct  Prejudicial
to Good Order and Discipline.  The specific reasons follow:

        a.  Nonjudicial Punishment - Article 15 dated 2 March 1983.

        b.  He did on or about 14  March  1983,  fail  to  go  at  the  time
prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit:   Area  Defense  Counsel,
1330 hours in violation of the Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice  (UCMJ),
Article 86, as evidenced by a Letter of  Reprimand  (LOR),  dated  16  March
1983.

        c.  He did on or about 18 May 1984, fail to report to his  appointed
place of duty, to wit:  Building 90726, training section as it was his  duty
to do so in violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, as evidenced by a  Letter  of
Counseling (LOC), dated 22 May 1984.

        d.  He was on or about, 19 September 1984, counseled for failing  to
meet his just financial obligations,  and  showing  dishonesty  towards  his
superiors and subordinates by lying concerning his  off-duty  employment  as
evidenced by a Record of Counseling, dated 20 September 1984.

        e. His personal problems on 18 November  and  again  on  19 November
1984, affected his duty performance and ability to respond properly at  work
because of his domestic problems and behavior as evidenced by  a  Record  of
Counseling, dated 20 November 1984.

        f.  His failure on or  about,  14  December  1984,  to  control  his
financial matters and domestic behavior towards his  wife  resulted  in  his
being unable to perform his mission properly and caused  hardships  for  his
supervisors as evidenced by a Record of Counseling, dated 17 December 1984.

        g.  He was on or about, 1 March  1985,  involved  in  an  affray  in
which the security police had to respond for  which  he  received  a  verbal
counseling as evidenced by DD Form 1569, Incident/Complaint Report  No.  85-
120, dated 4 March 1985.

        h.  He did on or about, 23 February 1985, permit a female  guest  to
reside in his dormitory room after authorized visitation hours in  violation
of HFR 90-2, paragraph 8a(4), as evidenced by an LOR, dated 5 March 1985.

        i.  He was, at Howard AFB, Panama, on  several  occasions,  observed
in violation of AFR 35-10 as supplemented, by his not  wearing  his  uniform
properly as evidenced by a statement, dated 2 April 1985.

        j.  He did on or about 9 April  1985,  at  Howard  AFB,  Panama,  at
approximately 2310 hours, had an undressed female  guest  in  his  dormitory
room in violation of 1 Special Operations Wing (SOW) policy as evidenced  by
a statement, dated 10 April 1985.

The commander indicated in his  recommendation  for  discharge  action  that
before recommending the discharge  he  provided  the  applicant  with  every
opportunity to rehabilitate himself, change his attitude and to resolve  any
conflicts  in  his  career  through  all  available  resources,  to  include
nonjudicial punishment, reprimands and counselings.  All  actions  were  met
with negative results.  He did not recommend probation  and  rehabilitation.
He further indicated ample time had been given to the applicant for  him  to
change his behavior, attitude and to resolve any problems for which  he  may
have experienced.  He had not shown mature growth and continued  to  respond
negatively.  Therefore, he felt it in the best interest  of  the  Air  Force
and the applicant that he be returned to civilian life where he  may  become
a more productive citizen.

The commander advised the applicant of his right to  consult  legal  counsel
and submit statements in his own behalf.  He was  advised  that  failure  to
submit matters in his own behalf would constitute a waiver of his  right  to
do so.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant  submitted  statements  in  his
own behalf.

On 24 April 1985, the Staff Judge  Advocate  recommended  the  applicant  be
discharged with service  characterized  as  general  without  probation  and
rehabilitation.  He further indicated the letter of  notification  contained
three entries 2d, 2e, and 2f, which  did  not  constitute  misconduct,  when
closely examined, and were not appropriate  justification  for  a  discharge
based on  AFR  39-10(5-47b).   Irrespective  of  these  entries,  there  was
sufficient evidence to support the squadron’s recommendation.

The discharge authority approved the applicant’s general discharge on 2  May
1985.

The applicant was discharged on 7 May 1985, in the  grade  of  airman  first
class with a general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge,  under  the
provisions of AFR 39-10, (Misconduct - Pattern Conduct Prejudicial  to  Good
Order and Discipline).  He served two years, eight months, and  one  day  of
total active military service.

A Department of Veterans Affairs Rating  Decision,  dated  7 February  2005,
indicates the claim for service connection for depressive disorder  (claimed
as mental problems, stress, bipolar depression  (Not  Otherwise  Specified),
schizophrenia,  intermittent  explosive  disorder  BADII)  remained   denied
because the  evidence  submitted  was  not  new  and  material.   The  cited
treatment records and progress notes, although  new,  was  not  material  in
that it  did  not  establish  the  bipolar  condition  was  incurred  in  or
aggravated by service or the condition manifested to  a  compensable  degree
within the one-year presumptive period following  his  separation  from  the
service.  The cited treatment records and  progress  notes  also  failed  to
show that the condition had any link to military service.  The prior  denial
was confirmed and continued.

Pursuant to the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an arrest record which is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial indicating 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 evidence or identify any errors  or  injustices
that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no facts  warranting
a change to his character of service.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 20 May 2005, a copy of the Air Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant for review and response within 30  days.   As  of  this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

On 14 June 2005, the Board  staff  requested  the  applicant  provide  post-
service documentation within 20 days (Exhibit F).  The Board staff  received
returned mail indicating the forwarding order had expired.

On 11 August 2005, the applicant was provided the opportunity to respond  to
the FBI investigation within 20 days (Exhibit G).  The Board staff  received
returned mail indicating the forwarding order had expired.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an  error  or  injustice  warranting  the  applicant’s  general
(under  honorable  conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded  to   an   honorable
discharge.  The Board believes  responsible  officials  applied  appropriate
standards  in  effecting  the  separation,  and  the  Board  does  not  find
persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were  violated  or  that  the
applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the  time  of
discharge.  The applicant has not  provided  persuasive  evidence  that  his
discharge was the result of  anything  other  than  his  own  behavior.   No
evidence has been  submitted  which  would  indicate  the  applicant  had  a
medical condition during the time period in question which would  have  been
the reason for his misconduct.  Therefore, in the  absence  of  evidence  to
the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting  the  relief
sought.

4.    Although the applicant  did  not  specifically  request  consideration
based  on  clemency,  we  also  find  insufficient  evidence  to  warrant  a
recommendation the discharge be upgraded on that basis.   In  this  respect,
we note the applicant’s continued misconduct  following  his  discharge,  as
indicated on the FBI report.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice; the application  was  denied  without  a
personal appearance; and 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-
00750 in Executive Session on 20 October 2005, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
                 Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
                 Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 February 2005.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 12 May 2005.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 May 2005.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 June 2005, w/atch.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 August 2005, w/atch.




                       KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                       Panel Chair