RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01002
                 INDEX CODE:  108.00

                 COUNSEL:  NONE

                 HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her  honorable  discharge  (Voluntary  Resignation   -   Miscellaneous
Reasons) be changed to a disability retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There were medical conditions that were severe and present at the time
of her discharge.  In a letter addressed to the Secretary of  the  Air
Force, dated 25 February 1998, applicant states that according to  AFR
160-43, the medical records have to be reviewed  to  determine  if  an
examination is required.  It was determined that she  didn’t  need  to
take one.  Applicant states that she elected  not  to  take  the  exam
because she couldn’t stand for another person to touch her, especially
male.  Her Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was something she knew very
little about, but was up for the challenge to learn all she could.

Applicant’s submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant in the Reserve of the  Air
Force on 23 January 1980 and ordered to extended active duty.

On 20 October 1982, the applicant submitted a request for release from
extended active duty to be effective 1 December 1982.   The  applicant
indicated that the reason for submitting her request was that she  had
been grossly mismatched into the aircraft  maintenance  career  field.
She stated that in this career field she would always be a  “marginal”
maintenance officer and would always carry a “2” rating on her Officer
Effectiveness Reports (OERs).  Her area of expertise was working  with
the handicapped, mentally retarded and elderly.  She  stated  that  it
was her desire to separate from active  duty,  work  in  her  area  of
expertise and be happy doing what she does best.

Applicant’s Squadron Commander, on  27  October  1982,  counseled  the
applicant and concurred with her request for separation.

On 28 October 1982, applicant stated that she  had  paid  her  tuition
assistance in full and wished to have her date of separation put  back
to its original date.  She stated this was imperative  since  she  was
trying to separate early.

The  applicant  was  temporarily  decertified  under   the   Personnel
Reliability Program (PRP) effective 2  November  1982  for  exhibiting
mental stress and anxiety associated with her work environment  on  29
October 1982.

On 12 November 1982, the Wing Commander recommended  approval  of  the
applicant’s request for separation.  The  commander  stated  that  the
applicant was mal-assigned in the maintenance  career  field  and  had
failed to achieve competency commensurate with her  time  in  service.
The commander stated that it appeared  her  emotional  problems  would
only be resolved by her removal from the maintenance career field.  He
did not recommend cross training.

An initial  impression  of  Major  Depression  had  been  rendered  on
16 November  1982  when  the  applicant  was  first  referred  for   a
Psychiatric Evaluation.   The  applicant  was  seen  on  a  commander-
directed mental health evaluation on 30 November 1982  when  diagnoses
of Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood and Histrionic  Personality
Disorder were documented.

On 17 December 1982,  the  applicant  submitted  an  addendum  to  her
request for separation.  She stated that she requests her  application
be changed to reflect that she desired to tender her resignation  from
all appointments held by her in the U. S. Air Force.

Applicant  was  permanently  decertified  from   the   PRP   effective
20 December 1982.

On 22 December 1982, the Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  accepted  the
applicant’s resignation under the provisions of AFR  36-12,  effective
as soon as possible and directed  that  she  be  issued  an  honorable
discharge.

Applicant was  honorably  discharged  on  6  January  1983  under  the
provisions  of  AFR  36-12  (Voluntary   Resignation:    Miscellaneous
Reasons).  She served 2 years, 11 months and 14 days of active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, Medical  Advisor  SAF  Personnel
Council, states that the applicant bases her  request  for  a  medical
retirement  on  alleged  problems  with  habitual  and  severe  sexual
harassment from all levels of rank from  civilians  through  a  3-star
general with rape being committed by  whom  she  feels  was  an  Asian
civilian.  She states that this was reported to medical personnel  but
not to law enforcement authorities on  advice  of  her  commander.   A
thorough search through service medical records does  not  reveal  any
mention of such an incident.  A medical entry of 23 December 1980 only
comments on her being “subject to personal stresses.”  Based  on  this
lack  of  evidence  confirming  her  allegations,  the  Department  of
Veterans Affairs (DVA) has not been able to substantiate her claim  to
be suffering from  post-traumatic  stress  disorder  (PTSD),  although
there are multiple  entries  from  her  post-service  years  detailing
discussions held with psychologists referencing this alleged incident.
 There is nothing found about the applicant ever filing  an  Inspector
General or Social Actions complaint  about  the  alleged  extreme  and
constant sexual harassment she was subject to, actions that would have
certainly triggered an investigation of her disturbing allegations.

The applicant’s claims of other  supposedly  unfitting  conditions  of
thoracic outlet syndrome, headaches and asthma while  on  active  duty
are partially substantiated by review of her records.  She was treated
for  migraine-like  headaches  which  were  not  found  unfitting  for
continued duty, and asthma is mentioned, but not well documented as  a
significant problem.  She did  undergo  surgery  for  thoracic  outlet
syndrome in December 1985 in Portland, Oregon, when a cervical rib was
removed on the left side, but  her  service  medical  records  do  not
indicate significant problems during her active duty years that  would
have rendered her unfit for duty.

The applicant bases her request for a disability retirement  primarily
on the DVA findings of Dysthymiac Disorder  (Not  PTSD)  and  Thoracic
Outlet Syndrome totaling 60% for disability compensation  purposes  as
of June 1966.

The reason applicant could be declared fit for duty by the  Air  Force
and later be granted 60% service-connected disability by the DVA  lies
in understanding the differences between Title 10, USC and  Title  38,
USC.  Title 10, USC, Chapter 61 is the federal  statute  that  charges
the Service Secretaries with maintaining a fit and vital  force.   For
an individual to be considered unfit for military service, there  must
be a medical condition so severe that it prevents performance  of  any
work commensurate with rank  and  experience.   Title  38,  USC  which
governs the DVA compensation system  was  written  to  allow  awarding
compensation  ratings  for  conditions  that  are  not  unfitting  for
military service.  The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion  that
the applicant’s request for disability retirement be denied.

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

The Chief, Physical Disability Division, HQ AFPC/DPPD, states that the
purpose of the military disability evaluation system is to maintain  a
fit and vital force by separating members who are  unable  to  perform
the duties of their office, grade, rank or rating.   Members  who  are
separated  or  retired  for  reason  of  physical  disability  may  be
eligible,   if   otherwise   qualified,   for    certain    disability
compensations.  Eligibility for disability processing  is  established
by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) when that  board  finds  that  the
member may not be  qualified  for  continued  military  service.   The
decision to conduct an MEB is made by the medical  treatment  facility
providing care to the member.

AFPC/DPPD carefully reviewed the application  and  verified  that  the
applicant was never  referred  to  or  considered  by  the  Air  Force
Disability  Evaluation  system  under  the  provisions  of  AFR  35-4.
Although the applicant was treated for medical conditions  during  her
period on active duty, none were serious enough to make her unfit  for
continued military service.  She was  able  to  perform  her  assigned
duties right up to the time of her voluntary discharge.  Records  also
reflect that the applicant chose not to have a medical examination  at
the time of her separation.  There was no  error  or  injustice  found
that would merit a change to the applicant’s record.   They  recommend
denial of the applicant’s request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
29 June 1998 for review and response within 30 days.  Applicant states
that she is submitting new evidence since she wrote the  Secretary  of
the Air Force in February 1998.

A copy of the applicant’s response, with attachments, is  attached  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.  After a thorough review
of the evidence of record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded  that  her  honorable  discharge,  Voluntary  Resignation  -
Miscellaneous Reasons, should be changed to a  disability  retirement.
Her contentions  are  duly  noted;  however,  we  do  not  find  these
uncorroborated  assertions,  in  and   by   themselves,   sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Air  Force.   We
therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air  Force  and  adopt
the rationale expressed  as  the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain  her  burden  that  she  has  suffered
either an error or an injustice.  Therefore,  we  find  no  compelling
basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_______________________________________________________________________
_____________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of probable  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 March 1999, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603.

                  Ms. Cathlynn B. Sparks, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Mike Novel, Member
                  Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Jul 97, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 15 May 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 15 Jun 98.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Jun 98.
   Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 1 Jul 98, w/atchs.




                                   CATHLYNN B. SPARKS
                                   Panel Chair