RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00192
                       INDEX CODE:  106.00
                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED:  No

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  13 Jul 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 1994 general discharge for misconduct  be  changed  to  a  medical
separation and that the characterization of his service be upgraded to
honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Although undiagnosed, he did have mental problems  while  in  the  Air
Force that should have resulted in a medical discharge.  Had  he  been
treated for these disorders the outcome  would  have  been  different.
Instead, these disorders continue to affect him.  He  could  have  had
the opportunity to be diagnosed shortly before he left the  Air  Force
but he was afraid  the  disclosure  would  have  added  more  evidence
against him while his discharge was  in  process.   He  indicates  his
first major depressive episode occurred  when  he  was  in  the  fifth
grade.  He gradually worked out of the depressive episode, but entered
his second major depressive episode after he entered  the  Air  Force.
He began to cut himself to relieve stress, and had social anxiety  and
obsessive-compulsive disorder to  contend  with  also.   He  has  been
diagnosed  with  major  depressive  disorder  (recurrent),  obsessive-
compulsive disorder, and severe anxiety.  Had he  been  diagnosed  and
treated for these problems, he would have made better choices  in  the
later part of his Air Force career.  He wants his  discharge  upgraded
so he will have better job opportunities.

The applicant provides two letters  from  civilian  medical  providers
regarding his medical condition and other documentation.  His complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The following information was extracted from documents provided by the
applicant (Exhibit A) and his available military records (Exhibit B).

The applicant underwent a medical exam for enlistment  on  16 Dec  89.
On the Report of Medical History, he indicated he had not  experienced
depression or excessive worry, or been treated for a mental condition.
 He enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17 Apr 91, and  served  as  a
computer systems operations technician at Randolph AFB,  TX.   He  was
promoted to the grade of airman first class (A1C) on 17 Aug 92.

On 13 Aug 93, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC)  for
failing to perform certain procedures on 16 Jul 93.  He apparently was
verbally counseled twice before regarding  attention  to  detail.   He
received another LOC, on 20 Sep 93, for failing to meet his  financial
obligations.   On  23 Nov  93,  he  received  another  LOC   for   not
maintaining his mustache, hair, and uniform according to standards.

On an AF  Form  418,  dated  25 Jan  94,  the  applicant’s  supervisor
indicated he was not recommending the applicant for  reenlistment  due
to his failure to consistently meet Air Force standards.  He had  been
counseled concerning  job  performance  and  displayed  no  measurable
improvement.  Encouragement and projects to improve his initiative did
not produce timely results comparable to his peers.  He also  required
counseling for financial responsibility and traffic  violations.   The
applicant’s on- and off-duty performance was not compatible  with  the
caliber of desired personnel.  The unit commander  concurred  and,  on
25 Jan  94,  the  applicant  indicated  he  intended  to  appeal   the
nonrecommendation.

On 10 Mar 94, the applicant received an LOC for being late for duty.

On 3 May 94, the appellate authority concurred  with  the  commander’s
decision to nonrecommend the applicant for reenlistment.

On 10 May 94, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for wrongfully appropriating  a
10-speed bicycle, the property of a  master  sergeant  and  valued  at
about  $100.00,  and  13  government  computer  diskettes   containing
software programs, valued in excess of $200.00, on or about 5 May  94,
at or near Randolph AFB, TX.  On  16 May  94,  after  consulting  with
counsel, applicant waived his
right to a trial by court-martial, requested a personal appearance and
submitted a written presentation.  He indicated he understood  he  was
wrong in doing what he did and claimed he intended to return the  bike
and diskettes he had “borrowed.”  He indicated his  actions  were  the
result of his frustration and uncertainty about his future when he was
not recommended for reenlistment.  On 18 May 94, he was  found  guilty
by his commander who imposed punishment in form of reduction to airman
basic.  The applicant did not appeal the punishment and the Article 15
was filed in his Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

On 15 Jun 94, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent  to
recommend a  general  discharge  for  misconduct  (minor  disciplinary
infractions).  The commander cited the Article 15 and the  LOCs.   The
applicant consulted counsel and submitted statements.   The  commander
recommended a general discharge without probation  and  rehabilitation
(P&R) because of the applicant’s attitude, as evidenced by the failure
of prior rehabilitative efforts.

The applicant underwent  a  separation  physical  on  20 Jun  94,  and
indicated on the Report of Medical History that he had not experienced
depression or excessive worry or nervous trouble of any sort.

Legal review, on 24 Jun 94, found the case sufficient  for  separation
and recommended a general discharge for misconduct without  P&R.   The
discharge authority concurred and, on  8 Jul  94,  the  applicant  was
discharged for misconduct in the grade of airman basic with a  general
characterization after 3 years,  2  months,  and  22  days  of  active
service.

On 9 Apr 02, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC),
Air Force Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB),  denied  the  applicant’s
request for an honorable discharge, indicating there was  no  evidence
in his medical records to  indicate  that  his  major  depression  and
obsessive-compulsive disorder occurred while in the Air Force.

According to documents submitted by the applicant in this  appeal  and
to the AFDRB (Exhibit A and B), he began therapeutic treatment in  Dec
97 for depressive disorder with  secondary  components  of  obsessive-
compulsive disorder.   The  psychologist  associate  opined  that  the
applicant’s mood disorder likely existed throughout his adolescent and
adult history and was present in 1994.  Further, his  past  adjustment
difficulties may have been minimized had his condition been  diagnosed
and treated.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant discusses the applicant’s condition  and
advises that, while in  retrospect  it  is  plausible  he  experienced
recurrent depression that began prior to entry into military  service,
there is no evidence he lacked the mental capacity to know right  from
wrong and conform to the right as a result of his  condition.   It  is
speculative as to what might have happened had  the  applicant  sought
care while in service instead  of  waiting  until  three  years  after
separation.  Based on the evidence of record, it is also plausible the
applicant may have been diagnosed with unsuiting  conditions  such  as
personality   disorder   and   adjustment   disorder   resulting    in
administrative  discharge.   If  diagnosis  of  his  existed-prior-to-
service (EPTS) condition had been made, there is no evidence  military
service aggravated the condition beyond  the  natural  course  of  the
condition.  The preponderance of evidence in the records is consistent
with no more than a mild severity at the time.  Processing through the
disability  system  would  have  likely  than  not   resulted   in   a
recommendation for discharge due to an EPTS condition not  permanently
aggravated  by  military  service  (discharge  without  compensation).
Since  there  was  misconduct  with  processing   for   administrative
discharge, the case would have been considered a dual action  case  by
the SAFPC.  The Council determines under which basis for discharge  an
airman will be separated:  misconduct or  disability.   Today,  unless
the medical disability is the clear cause of the  misconduct,  renders
the member legally insane, or is of a compelling  and  severe  nature,
the SAFPC consistently decides to separate based  on  the  misconduct.
Action and disposition in this case were proper and equitable  and  no
change in the applicant’s records is warranted.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 2 Dec 05 for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of
this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review  of  the
evidence  of  record  and  the  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded his 1994 general discharge for misconduct should be  changed
to an honorable discharge for
medical  disability.   The  applicant’s  contentions   and   submitted
statements were duly noted; however, we do not find these, in  and  by
themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided
by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant.  As indicated  in  the  Consultant’s
discussion, while  it  may  be  plausible  the  applicant  experienced
recurrent depression that began prior to entry into military  service,
there is no evidence he was not accountable for his actions because he
lacked the mental capacity to know right from wrong and to conform  to
the right.  Further, had  the  applicant  sought  care  while  in  the
service instead of waiting three years after separation,  it  is  also
plausible he may have been diagnosed with unsuiting  conditions,  such
as  personality   disorder   and   adjustment   disorder,   and   been
administratively  discharged.   There  is  no  evidence  the  military
service aggravated his EPTS condition beyond the natural course of the
condition.  The Consultant’s review of the applicant’s service medical
records found no evidence of  mental  illness  that  either  warranted
disability  evaluation  or  mitigated  his  misconduct.   He   further
concluded that discharge for misconduct would still have been the most
likely outcome even if the case had been processed as  a  dual  action
case.  In view of the above and  absent  persuasive  evidence  to  the
contrary, we  agree  with  the  AFBCMR  Medical  Consultant  that  the
applicant has not sustained his burden of having  suffered  either  an
error or an injustice.  Therefore, we  find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in
Executive Session on 26 January 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:


                                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                                  Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member
                                  Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-00192 was considered:

   Exhibit A. DD Form 149, undated (received 31 Jan 05), w/atchs.
   Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 29 Nov 05.
   Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Dec 05.





                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair