RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01343
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  21 Oct 06


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His General (Under Honorable  Conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He would like his discharge changed to honorable  because  of  medical
conditions having an effect on his  service.   He  received  a  mental
health evaluation while still in service, which led to his  discharge.
Applicant provides a copy of the mental health evaluation.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 30 Dec 04.  On 2
Apr 04, he was  notified  by  his  squadron  commander  he  was  being
recommended for discharge from the Air Force for mental disorders  and
for minor disciplinary infractions.  The applicant had been  diagnosed
by a staff psychiatrist as having an adjustment disorder so severe  as
to significantly impair his ability to  effectively  function  in  the
military  environment.   The  applicant  was  not  suffering  from   a
medically disqualifying condition and was considered competent to make
decisions.  The reasons for the commander’s actions were:

        a.  Received a letter of reprimand (LOR)  on  18  Mar  04  for
several incidents of making threatening gestures toward other airmen.

        b.  Received an LOR on 6 Mar 04 for dereliction  of  duty  and
being late for duty.

        c.  Received an LOR on 26 Feb 04 for failure to report to  his
appointed place of duty.

        d.  Punished under Article 15 on 20 Feb 04 for dereliction  of
duty and failure to report to his appointed place of duty.

        e.  Diagnosed on 12 Feb 04 with Axis  I,  Adjustment  disorder
with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct  and  Axis  II,  strong
schizotypal, narcissistic, histronic, and antisocial traits.

        f.  Received a LOR on 4  Dec  03  for  various  motor  vehicle
violations.

        g.  Received an LOR on 30  May  03  for  missing  a  mandatory
formation.

On 2 Apr 04, the applicant acknowledged receipt of  the  notification,
consulted counsel and waived his option to submit  statements  in  his
own behalf.  Subsequently his squadron commander  recommended  to  the
wing commander the applicant  be  separated  for  the  reasons  stated
above.  The  Judge  Advocate  found  the  proposed  discharge  legally
sufficient and  recommended  the  applicant  be  discharged  with  the
primary basis as minor disciplinary infractions with a General  (Under
Honorable Conditions) discharge without probation and  rehabilitation.
On 19 Apr 04, the Wing commander directed  the  applicant’s  discharge
from the Air Force as recommended.  The applicant was discharged on 20
Apr 04 for misconduct with  a  General  (Under  Honorable  Conditions)
discharge.  Additional facts relevant to this case  are  contained  in
the evaluation prepared  by  the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  found  at
Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s
request.  The applicant was administratively  separated  both  due  to
unsuitability due to adjustment disorder and misconduct.  Evidence  of
record indicates a  pre-service  pattern  of  conduct  that  continued
following entry on active  duty  consistent  with  his  long  standing
maladaptive personality traits.  According to AFI 36-3208 the presence
of unsuiting conditions  does  not  bar  characterizing  the  member’s
service based on the quality of their service and conduct when another
basis  for  discharge  exists  that   allows   and   merits   such   a
characterization.  In this  instance,  the  unsuiting  conditions  are
secondary and the character of service is based on the  primary  basis
such as misconduct or unsatisfactory service.  AFI 36-3208, Chapter 5,
paragraph  5.11,  specifically  states  that  discharge   for   mental
conditions is not  appropriate  if  the  airman’s  record  supports  a
discharge  for  another  reason,  such  as  misconduct.   Although   a
discharge based solely on a  mental  disorder  warrants  an  Honorable
characterization, because this case was processed with  misconduct  as
the principle reason, AFI 36-3208, Chapter 6, paragraph 6.44.3  allows
the criteria and latitude for a misconduct discharge to be applied.

The complete 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 5
Jun 06 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has
not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

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 opinion  and  recommendation  of  the  BCMR
Medical Consultant and adopt  his  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.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Docket  Number  BC-2005-
01343 in Executive Session on 13 July  and  28  July  2006  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas, Member
      Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2005-
01343 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Apr 05, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memo, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 5 Jun 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Jun 06.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair