RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01094
                                       INDEX CODE:  110.02
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX             COUNSEL: NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  2 October 2006


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be  upgraded  to
honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of her discharge she was fearful of her spouse,  due  to  veiled
threat of physical harm to her and her unborn child. She had  to  be  placed
on valium during basic training and  was  recently  diagnosed  with  Bipolar
Disorder, which would explain  her  erratic  behavior  during  her  time  in
service.

The  applicant  provided  no  evidence  in  support  of  her  appeal.    The
applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 23 April 1971, the applicant enlisted in the Regular  Air  Force  at  the
age of 19 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a  period  of  four  years.
She was progressively promoted to the grade  of  airmen  first  class  (E-3)
effective and with a date of rank of 1 December 1971.

On 15 December 1971, the applicant received Article 15 punishment for  being
absent without authority 1-6 December  1971  in  violation  of  Article  86,
Uniformed Code of Military Justice  (UCMJ).   Her  punishment  consisted  of
reduction in grade to airman, forfeiture of $149 of pay, and restriction  to
base limits for a period of 14 consecutive days.  The portion of  punishment
pertaining to reduction in rank was  suspended  until  9  June  1972  unless
sooner vacated.  On 18 January 1972, the suspension of reduction in rank  to
airman was vacated due to the applicant’s failure to  go  to  her  place  of
duty at the prescribed time on 10 January 1972.

On 6 March 1972, the applicant received  Article  15  punishment  for  being
absent without authority 7-9 February 1972,  10-15  February  1972,  and  18
February – 6 March 1972, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ.   Her  punishment
consisted of reduction in grade to airman basic, forfeiture of $140  of  pay
per month for two months, and restriction to her building for  a  period  of
60 days.

A Mental Health  Clinic  evaluation,  dated  7  March  1972,  indicates  the
applicant was diagnosed with a character and behavior disorder with passive-
aggressive personality; however, she knows right from wrong and  can  adhere
to the right if she so desires.

On 23  March  1972,  her  commander  notified  the  applicant  that  he  was
recommending her for an undesirable discharge under AFM  39-12,  Section  B,
Chapter 2,  paragraph  2-15a  (unsuitability).  The  applicant  acknowledged
receipt and, after consulting the appointed counsel, waived  her  rights  to
an administrative hearing before a discharge board and declined to submit  a
statement in her own behalf.  On 25 March 1972,  the  Staff  Judge  Advocate
found the case to be legally sufficient.  On 28 March  1972,  the  discharge
authority  approved  the  recommended  separation  and  directed  that   the
applicant be discharged with an undesirable discharge without  probation  or
rehabilitation.

The applicant was discharged effective 29 March 1972  with  an  under  other
than honorable conditions discharge.  She served ten months and  seven  days
of active duty.  Her time lost was 29 days.

On 8 August 1974, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) reviewed  and
considered the applicant’s request to upgrade  her  discharge  to  honorable
and to change her reenlistment eligibility code to one that would allow  her
to reenlist in the military.  On 20 August  1974,  the  AFDRB  notified  the
applicant her application was denied.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the FBI indicated that on the basis of  the
data furnished, they were unable to locate an arrest  record  pertaining  to
the applicant.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the  records
is  warranted.   The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  states  the  applicant  was
administratively discharged with a UOTHC discharge for  misconduct  and  now
requests upgrade of  discharge  to  honorable  contending  Bipolar  Disorder
diagnosed  decades  later  caused  her  misconduct  based  on  retrospective
speculation  that  her  illness  was   present   since   adolescence.    The
preponderance of evidence does not support the applicant’s  contention  that
her misconduct was the result of undiagnosed Bipolar Disorder and  therefore
mitigates that behavior to the  extent  that  an  upgrade  in  discharge  is
warranted.  Review of records show  that  her  misconduct  was  willful  and
specifically stated by the applicant for the purpose of getting out  of  the
Air Force.  At the time of her misconduct and subsequent  discharge  action,
the  applicant  underwent  a  mental  health  evaluation  by   a   competent
psychiatrist who diagnosed personality  disorder.   Review  of  her  service
record is consistent with a disorder  of  personality.   The  fact  she  was
later  diagnosed  with  Bipolar  Disorder  does  not  invalidate  the  prior
diagnosis  of  character  disorder  (Personality  Disorder)  while  in   the
service.  There is no  evidence  in  the  service  records  that  shows  the
applicant experienced mania or psychosis while in the service  even  if  her
lifelong  difficulties  may  have  represented  an  antecedent   personality
disorder  or  the  prodromal  manifestations  or  later  diagnosed   Bipolar
Disorder.  There were no documented manifestations of  symptoms  that  would
specifically suggest Bipolar Disorder or a psychotic disorder rather than  a
personality  disorder  that  would  mitigate   the   consequences   of   her
misconduct.

It is the BCMR Medial Consultant’s opinions that 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 copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 17  May
2006 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this  date,  this  office
has received no response.

The  applicant  was  also  given  an  opportunity  to  submit  information
concerning  her  post-service  activities  (Exhibit  E).   The   applicant
responded that although she has been divorced three times in the past, she
has been with her current husband for 21 years.   During  that  time  they
successfully ran a locksmith business, and made  friends  both  personally
and  professionally.   She  has  been  very  active  in  church  and   the
congregation requested her as a Lay Reader.  She states if she could  undo
any of the mistakes she made, she would gladly do so; however,  since  she
can’t, she will live with the guilt and shame for the rest  of  her  life.
She asks the Board to grant her clemency in regard to her appeal.

The applicant provides four  character  references  in  her  behalf.   Her
response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  The applicant  did  not  provide
persuasive evidence showing the  information  in  the  discharge  case  was
erroneous, her substantial rights were violated,  or  that  her  commanders
abused their discretionary authority.  The  characterization  of  discharge
which was issued at the  time  of  the  applicant’s  separation  accurately
reflects the circumstances of  her  separation  and  we  do  not  find  the
characterization of discharge to be  in  error  or  unjust.   We  note  the
personal letters provided attesting to the applicant’s character;  however,
she has provided insufficient evidence showing that, in the years since her
discharge, she has  become  a  productive  and  upstanding  member  of  her
community.  Therefore, we  are  not  inclined  to  favorably  consider  her
request based on clemency.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request is denied.


_________________________________________________________________

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 25 July 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Panel Chair
      Mr. Elwood C. Lewis, III, Member
      Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member


The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR  Docket  Number
BC-2005-01094:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Apr 05.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 12 May 06.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 May 06.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 May 2006, w/atch.
      Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 7 Jun 06, w/atchs..




                                  JAMES W. RUSSELL, III
                                                   Panel Chair