RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01142
      INDEX CODE:  110.02

      COUNSEL:  NONE

      HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE:  7 DECEMBER 2006

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under honorable conditions discharge (general) be upgraded.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He suffered with severe depression  while  on  active  duty.   However,  his
character of service should now be upgraded due to his life  accomplishments
since his discharge from active duty.

In support of his application, the applicant  submits  a  copy  of  his  Air
Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) application  (DD  293),  a  copy  of  a
response letter from the Review Boards Office, and a copy of his  separation
document.  The applicant’s complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 10 May 1966, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at  the  age
of 19 in the grade  of  airman  basic  for  a  period  of  4  years.   After
completing basic military training, the applicant was assigned to duties  as
a vehicle operator.

In a medical examiner’s narrative  summary  dated  10  September  1966,  the
applicant was diagnosed as having a depressive  reaction,  manifested  by  a
suicidal gesture.

A medical examiner’s narrative summary dated 18 September 1966,  rendered  a
diagnosis of passive dependency reaction, chronic, moderate,  manifested  by
suicidal gesture after  break-up  with  girlfriend,  exaggerated  dependency
needs, and increased reliance on home environment; stress, moderate,  break-
up  with  girlfriend  with   whom   he   had   a   dependent   relationship;
predisposition, mild, lifelong pattern of  dependent  relationships  on  his
family; impairment for further military duty, none.

The medical examiner recommended he be returned to duty and  given  a  trial
of functioning as a soldier.  He also recommended  the  applicant  be  given
support and a relationship with a social  worker  or  other  personnel  that
might be available as a counselor.  He concluded with a  recommendation  for
separation through administrative channels if the applicant  was  unable  to
adjust to further military duty.

The applicant received an Article 15, UCMJ for breaking  restriction  on  or
about 30 September 1966.  During an Office of Special Investigations  Report
of Investigation on 11 October  1966,  the  applicant  was  advised  of  his
rights and informed that the nature of the investigation was  his  attempted
suicide and glue sniffing on 9-10 September 1966.

On 12 December 1966, the applicant’s commander notified the  applicant  that
he was recommending the applicant be separated from the Air Force under  the
provisions of AFM 39-12, chapter 2, Section B,  para  2-15C  for  unfitness.
The applicant  was  advised  of  his  rights.   The  applicant  acknowledged
receipt of the notification and was counseled by  an  attorney.   He  waived
his right to a hearing before an administrative discharge board and did  not
submit statements in his own behalf.  The commander thereafter  initiated  a
recommendation for the applicant’s separation.

In a legal review of the discharge case file dated  22  December  1966,  the
assistant Staff Judge Advocate found the file  was  legally  sufficient  and
recommended that the applicant be separated from the  service  with  general
discharge.  On  28 December  1966,  the  discharge  authority  approved  the
recommended separation and directed the  applicant  be  discharged  for  the
reasons recommended by his commander, without the offer of probation and  or
suspension of discharge.

On 6 January 1967, the applicant was discharged under  honorable  conditions
(general).  He had served 7 months and 27 days on active duty.

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

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends  denial.   DPPRS  states  that  the  discharge  was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge regulation, and that the discharge was within  the  discretion  of
the discharge authority.  They conclude that the applicant  did  not  submit
any evidence or identify any errors  or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the
discharge processing, and that he provided no facts warranting a  change  to
his character of service (Exhibit C).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded  to  the  applicant  on  17
June 2005 for review  and  comment.   As  of  this  date,  this  office  has
received no response. On 29 June 2005, the applicant was invited  to  submit
information pertaining to his post-service accomplishments.   The  applicant
responded  with  his  personal  statement  which  depicts  his  post-service
activities (Exhibit E).

________________________________________________________________

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  upgrading  the  applicant’s
discharge.  There is no indication in the available record  the  applicant’s
discharge  was  improper.   It  appears  the  applicant  is  requesting  his
discharge be upgraded based on clemency in  consideration  of  a  successful
post-service  adjustment.   The  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement
relating his accomplishments since  his  separation;  however,  he  has  not
provided post-service  documentation  to  support  his  claims.   Should  he
provide statements from community leaders  and  acquaintances  attesting  to
his good character and reputation, and other evidence  of  successful  post-
service rehabilitation, we would be willing to reconsider  this  case  based
on the new evidence.  We cannot, however, recommend approval  based  on  the
current evidence of record.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES 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 6 December 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
                 Ms. LeLoy W Cottrell, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-2005-01142:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Apr 05, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, undated.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 June 05; and,
            Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 June 05 w/atch.
         Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, undated.





            MICHAEL V. BARBINO
            Panel Chair