RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03735
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  NOT INDICATED

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  6 JUN 2008


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded  to  an
honorable discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes the punishment was too harsh for the misconduct and he was
diagnosed with depression/paranoia while in the service.

In support of his application the applicant provided a copy of DD Form
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic  on
15 June 2004, for a term of 4 years.  On 22 June 2006, the applicant's
commander notified him that he was recommending he be discharged  from
the Air Force for misconduct.  The commander recommended he receive  a
general (under honorable conditions) discharge.   The  bases  for  the
commander’s recommendation were that on 12 June 2006,  he  received  a
vacation of nonjudicial punishment for  failure  to  go  at  the  time
prescribed to his appointed place  of  duty;  on  24  March  2006,  he
received an Article 15 for failure to go at the time prescribed to his
appointed place of duty; between  26  September  2005  and  27 January
2006, he received three Letters of Reprimand; two for his  room  being
in an unsanitary condition, and one for failure to go to  a  mandatory
appointment.  He also received four Letters of Counseling  between  31
August 2005 and 6  January  2006.   He  acknowledged  receipt  of  the
notification of discharge, and after consulting with counsel  did  not
submit statements in his own behalf.  The discharge case was  reviewed
by the base legal office and found to be legally sufficient to support
discharge and recommended he  be  discharged  with  a  general  (under
honorable conditions) discharge without probation  and  rehabilitation
(P&R).  The discharge authority approved the separation  and  directed
he be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge
without P&R.  Applicant was separated  on  21  July  2006,  under  the
provisions of AFI  32-08,  Administrative  Separation  of  Airmen  for
(misconduct) and  received  a  general  (under  honorable  conditions)
discharge.  He served two years, one month  and  two  days  on  active
duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommends   denial.    DPPRS   states,   based   on   the
documentation on file in the master personnel records,  the  discharge
was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the
discharge regulation.  The discharge was within the discretion of  the
discharge authority.  The applicant did not  submit  any  evidence  or
identify any errors or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the  discharge
processing, nor did he provide any facts warranting a  change  to  his
character of service or narrative reason for separation.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/JA recommends denial.  JA states medical hold is not  appropriate
for airmen who are being involuntarily separated unless the airman  is
undergoing a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).  The  applicant  was  not
undergoing an MEB  and  his  ongoing  treatment  prior  to  separation
presents  no  bases  for  relief.   JA  states  they  considered   the
applicant’s concern regarding his diagnosis  in  the  context  of  the
characterization  of  his  service.   A   general   (under   honorable
conditions) characterization is warranted when significant aspects  of
the airman’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive  aspects
of the airman’s military record.  In his two  years  of  service,  the
variety of disciplinary infractions ranged from failure to  report  to
physical training and later  failing  his  physical  fitness  test  to
failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  Except for the  failure
to go that served as the basis for vacated nonjudicial  punishment  on
12 June 2006, the  applicant’s  disciplinary  infractions  took  place
several months before his first encounter with Life Skills on 3  March
2006, and before he reported that he first experienced hallucinations.
 The record presents no causal evidence between the applicant’s mental
state and disciplinary  infractions.   After  careful  review  of  the
allegations and record, the facts present no basis for relief.

The JA evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
13 April 2007, 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice.  Evidence has not been  presented
which would lead us to believe that his  discharge  was  in  error  or
contrary to the governing Air Force instructions, which implement  the
law.  Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the
Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their  rationale
as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has  not  been  the
victim of an error or injustice.  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-2006-
03735 in Executive Session on 20 June 2007, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                 Mr. Wallace F. Beard Jr., Member
                 Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Nov 06, w/atch.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Memo, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Jan 07.
      Exhibit D. Memo, AFPC/JA, dated 10 Apr 07.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Apr 07.




      THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
      Chair