RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00504
                                        INDEX CODE:  110.00

                       COUNSEL:  NONE

                                        HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  19 JAN 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The discharge he received was erroneous because he was suffering  from
post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at the time of discharge.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 15 November 1966, the applicant enlisted in the Regular  Air  Force
(RegAF) as an airman basic (AB) for period of four years.

On 28 July 1970, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent
to recommend him for discharge under  the  provisions  of  Air  Force
Manual (AFM) 39-12 for unsuitability.  The specific  reason  for  the
discharge action was:

      On 1 May 1970, the applicant was evaluated by competent  medical
authority and diagnosed as having  a  passive-aggressive  personality,
dependent type, which is a character and behavior disorder.

The applicant received three performance reports while on active duty.
 He received a five rating on his performance report for the period 14
November 1968 through 5 August 1969, a nine rating on his  performance
report for the period 14 November 1967 through
13 November 1968, and a seven rating on his report for the  period  14
November 1966 through 13 November 1967.

The commander advised the applicant that an evaluation officer  would
be appointed  to  assist  him  and  that  he  would  be  afforded  an
opportunity to submit a rebuttal and statements in his own behalf.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification for  discharge
and declined to rebut the discharge action or to submit statements.

The commander indicated in his  report  for  discharge  that  numerous
counsellings and increased supervisory  control  failed  to  halt  the
rapid deterioration  in  the  effectiveness  of  the  applicant.   The
commander further cited the following derogatory information:  removal
from consideration for promotion, forfeiture of $50.00 of pay for  two
months, correctional custody for a period of  30  days.   Although  an
attached statement indicated the applicant was placed on  the  control
roster, there was no evidence available to substantiate that fact.

A legal review was  conducted  in  which  the  staff  judge  advocates
recommended  the  applicant  receive  an  under  honorable  conditions
(general) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

On 4 August 1970, the discharge authority directed the applicant  be
discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 5 August 1970, in the  grade  of  airman
first class with an under honorable conditions (general)  discharge,
in  accordance  with  AFM  39-12   Separation   for   Unsuitability,
Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for Discharge for  the  Good  of
the  Service  and  Procedures   for   the   Rehabilitation   Program
(unsuitability).  He served a total of 3 years, 8 months and 21 days
of active service.

A  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  (VA)   decision   letter   dated
27 February 2006 reflects the  applicant  is  receiving  a  disability
rating of 100 percent for PTSD.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states that based on the information and evidence  provided
they recommend the applicant's request be denied.   They further state
the applicant has not submitted any evidence nor identified any errors
or injustices that occurred in the processing of his discharge.  Based
upon the documentation in the applicant's file,
they believe his discharge was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulations  of  that  time.
Also, the discharge was within the sound discretion of  the  discharge
authority and the applicant did not provide any facts  to  warrant  an
upgrade of his discharge.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Air Force was unable to diagnose him correctly in 1969. The reason
his discharge should be reversed to  a  full  honorable  discharge  is
because the Air Force medical staff and authorities in general did not
have the ability to make a post traumatic stress disorder diagnosis at
the time.

The applicant’s complete response is at 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 an injustice  to  warrant  upgrading  the
applicant’s discharge.  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  Air  Force  and  adopt  its
rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has  failed
to sustain his burden that he has  suffered  either  an  error  or  an
injustice.  Based on the documentation in the applicant's records,  it
appears the processing of the discharge and  the  characterization  of
the discharge were appropriate and accomplished in accordance with Air
Force policy.  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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2006-00504 in Executive Session on 22 June 2006, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                                  Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                                  Ms. Glenda H. Scheiner, Member
                                  Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Feb 06.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 17 Mar 06.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Mar 06.
      Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.




                                        THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                        Chair