RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00087
                                             INDEX CODE:  110.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  24 July 2007


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be upgraded from under  other  than  honorable  conditions  to
general due to mental reasons.

His discharge be upgraded so that he may receive the  help  and  support  of
the  Veterans  Administration  (VA)  when  he  leaves  the  Kentucky   State
Reformatory in order that he may be able to rejoin society in a more  normal
lifestyle.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge should be for mental reasons.   Current  prison  mental  files
show new evidence of treatment for seizures and mental illness.

His problems while in the service were caused by delusions,  a  head  injury
while in the service, and his abusive childhood (states his father beat  him
and hit his head against the wall).  Air Force recruiters “had to  be  aware
of the subject  problems,  both  physical  and  mental,  and  recruited  him
anyway.”  He developed  seizures  while  in  the  service,  and  psychiatric
problems dating back to childhood were aggravated by the service.   The  Air
Force was negligent by not providing treatment or provision  for  return  to
civilian life.

He is now receiving minimal psychiatric and physical help  in  the  Kentucky
State Reformatory.

Since he was discharged without the mental and health help  the  appropriate
civilian and military  had  the  responsibility  to  provide,  he  has  been
constantly in trouble with society and is  spending  much  of  his  life  in
penal institutions.

His service before the accident was good and indicated  his  willingness  to
try to uplift himself from his well of despair of  his  previous  existence.
The Federal and State Government should share  the  responsibility  of  this
basically acceptable person and provide the help he needs to make  his  life
beneficial to society.

In support of his appeal, he has provided copies of  his  DD  Form  214,  an
undated document, titled Exhibit “B”, containing seven  statements,  and  an
undated document, titled Exhibit “C”, containing  28 issues  which  prove  a
basis for upgrading his discharge.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant entered the active Air Force on 6 December 1974 and served  for  a
period of three years, one month, and 13 Days, before being discharged  with
an under other than honorable conditions  (UOTHC)  service  characterization
on 18 January 1978.

On 15 November 1977, applicant was notified of  his  commander's  intent  to
recommend him for  a  UOTHC  discharge  for  misconduct,  specifically,  his
conviction in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky,  on  25
October 1977, of possessing an unregistered firearm (a .12  gauge  sawed-off
shotgun).  Prior to this, he had failed to return from ordinary leave  on  4
May 1977, had  been  AWOL  since  5  May  1977,  was  arrested  by  civilian
authorities on or about 12 May  1977  for  possession  of  the  unregistered
weapon, and had been in civilian confinement awaiting trial.  Applicant  was
sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment,  which  was  later  reduced  to  five
years, and was in prison at the time of notification.

The commander advised applicant of his right to present his case  before  an
administrative discharge board, subject to his availability  (e.g.,  not  in
civil confinement), to be represented by counsel, to  submit  statements  in
his own behalf, or waive the above rights after consulting with counsel.

Applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the  letter  notifying  him   of   his
commander’s proposed action, and waived his right to  a  hearing  before  an
administrative discharge board and to submit statements in his  own  behalf,
although the signed document waiving these rights is undated.

A legal review was conducted on 19 December 1977, in which the  staff  judge
advocate recommended applicant be discharged  for  misconduct  (civil  court
disposition) with a UOTHC discharge characterization.

Applicant was discharged on 18 January 1978 in the  grade  of  Airman  First
Class (E-3), with a UOTHC discharge  characterization,  in  accordance  with
AFR 39-12, Chapter 2, Section C, for misconduct (civil  court  disposition).
He served a total of three years, one month, and 13  days  of  total  active
service.

A resume of applicant's performance reports follows:

      PERIOD ENDING                     OVERALL EVALUATION

       6 Dec 1975                       8
      31 Aug 1976                       8

A previous application to the AFBCMR in  1992  (BCMR  DOCKET  92-00477)  was
denied.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial and advises that a UOTHC is  a
bar to payment of VA benefits.   However,  veterans  with  a  UOTHC  may  be
eligible for medical  care  of  service  connected  conditions  incurred  or
aggravated by service.

In 1975,  while  in  technical  training,  applicant  received  non-judicial
punishment for marijuana use/possession.  His commander  retained  him,  and
he completed training and performed satisfactorily  as  a  firefighter.   In
1976, he was evaluated for four to six fainting spells, including  specialty
evaluations  by  cardiology  and  neurology,  without  medical  explanation.
Service medical record entries  at  the  time  of  these  episodes  show  no
evidence  of  head  injury  or  trauma,  and  evaluation  by  a  neurologist
concluded that his problems  were  unrelated  to  the  sequelae  of  a  head
injury.  Mental health  evaluation  in  May  1976  noted  mild  anxiety  and
depressive symptoms, but no serious mental  illness  was  diagnosed.   As  a
result of recurrent episodes of fainting, he was  removed  from  firefighter
duties and cross- trained as  an  administrative  specialist.   In  February
1977,  while  attending  technical  training,  he  was   diagnosed   passive
aggressive personality.

While awaiting trial for the possession of an illegal  firearm,  a  civilian
mental  health  evaluation  rendered  a  diagnosis  of  acute  anxiety   and
depressive reaction.  In October 1977, with  legal  counsel,  he  entered  a
guilty plea, and there is no evidence that mental competency at the time  of
the offense was at issue at the time of his conviction.

In  December  1977,  he  manifested  psychotic   type   symptoms   and   was
hospitalized for evaluation and treatment, leading to a final  diagnosis  of
Passive Dependent Personality Disorder.  Documentation  indicates  patient’s
report of experimentation with a wide variety of drugs, including  marijuana
and LSD, and previous suicide attempts by hanging and poisoning  (apparently
prior to  entering  military  service).   During  that  hospitalization,  he
experienced recurrent syncope with seizure-like  activity;  however,  repeat
electroencephalogram  was  normal.   Of  note,  a  neurology  evaluation  in
December 1977 documented a patient report of similar “fits” occurring  since
teenage  years  that  was  not  reported  at  the  time  of  his  enlistment
examination.  Documentation also indicates he was accepted  for  an  alcohol
rehabilitation program in September 1980 (appears to approximately  coincide
with his release from prison).

In 1986, applicant was convicted of rape, promoting prostitution, use  of  a
minor in a sexual performance, and sodomy.  A court directed  mental  health
evaluation in December  1985  concluded  with  a  diagnosis  of  Anti-social
Personality Disorder,  and  further  concluded  that  at  the  time  of  the
offenses, he was not suffering from mental  disease  or  defect  that  would
have prevented him from understanding the consequences of his  actions.   He
was determined to be mentally ill, sentenced  to  35 years  in  prison,  and
committed to a correctional psychiatric center.  In 1989, he  was  diagnosed
with chronic schizophrenia.

In a 30 September 1991 statement (for the purposes of  obtaining  Department
of Veterans Affairs benefits and upgrade of discharge from the  Air  Force),
he reported receiving mental health counseling as a teenager, a fact he  did
not report at the time of his enlistment medical  examination,  as  well  as
asserting that his going AWOL and possessing a sawed  off  shotgun  was  the
result of his mental illness and delusions he was experiencing at the  time.


The preponderance of evidence of the records indicates that  he  experienced
significant mental problems and recurrent seizure  like  episodes  prior  to
entering military service and did not report this history  at  the  time  of
his enlistment medical examination.  Had he done  so,  he  would  have  been
rejected  for  entry  into  military  service  due  to  these  disqualifying
conditions.  Primary medical records and neurology evaluation while  in  the
service found no evidence of significant head  injury  and  no  evidence  of
seizure disorder.

Although a review of evidence  of  the  records  shows  transient  psychotic
symptoms seven months after the offense, and a  diagnosis  of  schizophrenia
more than 10 years later, there  is  no  primary  documentary  evidence  for
severe mental disease or defect at the time of  the  offense  that  rendered
him unable to appreciate the nature or wrongfulness of his conduct.   Mental
health evaluations  bracketing  the  time  of  his  offense  do  not  report
evidence of mental illness that would relieve him of mental responsibility.

There is no new evidence submitted that was not available when his  previous
application was considered,  and  his  argument  is  essentially  the  same.
Based on the preponderance of evidence, the action and disposition  in  this
case  are  proper  and  equitable,  reflecting  compliance  with  Air  Force
directives that implement the law.

The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 2  March
2007, and again on 20 March 2007, for review and  comment  within  30  days.
However, as of this date, no response has been received by this office.

________________________________________________________________

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.   We  find  no  impropriety  in   the
characterization of applicant's discharge.  It  appears  that  responsible
officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the  separation,  and
we do  not  find  persuasive  evidence  that  pertinent  regulations  were
violated or that applicant was  not  afforded  all  the  rights  to  which
entitled at the time of  discharge.   We  conclude,  therefore,  that  the
discharge proceedings were proper and characterization  of  the  discharge
was appropriate to the existing circumstances.

4.  We also find insufficient evidence to warrant  a  recommendation  that
the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.   We  have  considered
applicant's overall quality of service, the events which precipitated  the
discharge, and available evidence related to post-service  activities  and
accomplishments.  Based on the evidence of record, we cannot conclude that
clemency is warranted. Applicant has not provided  sufficient  information
of post-service activities and accomplishments for us to conclude that  he
has overcome the behavioral traits which caused the discharge.  We cannot,
therefore, 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 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-2006-00087
in Executive Session on 3 May 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. James W. Russell, III, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Maureen B. Higgins, Member
                       Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Jan 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Advisor, dated 2 Mar 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Mar 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 Mar 07.




                                   JAMES W. RUSSELL, III
                                   Panel Chair