RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00599
                             INDEX CODE: 131.00,108.00

                             COUNSEL:  NONE

                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His enlistment grade of staff sergeant  be  changed  to  technical  sergeant
based on alleged injustices suffered at the time of his enlistment.

In the alternative, applicant requests a medical discharge or retirement.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust  and
the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Prior to the period of enlistment under review, a resume of the  applicant’s
service is as follows:

      (1)  Enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 3 January 1980 for a  period
of six years.  He was honorably discharged on 2 January 1986, in  the  grade
of staff sergeant (E-5).  At the time of discharge,  he  was  credited  with
six years of active duty service.

      (2)  On 13 January 1987, he enlisted in the Air Force  Reserve  for  a
period of three years.

      (3)  He reenlisted in the Air Force Reserve on 11  February  1990,  in
the grade of staff sergeant, for a period of three years.  He was  honorably
discharged on 7 March 1991, in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6).

      (4)  On 8 March 1991,  the  applicant  reenlisted  in  the  Air  Force
Reserve for a period of six years.  Applicant served on active  duty  during
the period 11 February - 24 May 1991, and was credited with 3 months and  14
days of active duty service.   He  was  promoted  to  the  grade  of  master
sergeant (E-7) with a date of rank and effective date of 1 March 1993.

On 20 October 1995, the applicant requested release from the Reserves.   His
request was approved on 26 October 1995.

On 27 May 1996, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force Reserve  and
on 28 May 1996, he enlisted in the Regular Air Force, in the grade of  staff
sergeant, for a period of four years.  He is currently serving in the  grade
of staff sergeant, with a projected promotion  to  the  grade  of  technical
sergeant.

EPR profile reflects the following:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

       31 Mar 97       Removed by Order of the
                                  Chief of Staff, USAF

        1 Oct 97 Removed by Order of the

                                  Chief of Staff, USAF
        1 Oct 98                5
        1 Oct 99          5
       8 Mar 00           5

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Physical Standards, Medical Service Officer Management  Division,
AFMPC/DPAMM, reviewed this application and states that after  reviewing  the
documents provided there does not appear to be  any  medical  problems  that
are disqualifying and therefore requiring a Medical Evaluation Board  (MEB).
  Hyperhydrosis,  or  excessive  sweating,  is  not  disqualifying  and   is
treatable.  Medical  personnel  attributed  this  condition  to  the  stress
associated with recruiting and member states himself that the condition  has
significantly improved since leaving recruiting.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

The  Chief,  Skills  Management  Branch,  Directorate,   Personnel   Program
Management, AFPC/DPPAE, also reviewed this application and states  that  the
provisions  of  the  current  Prior  Service  Grade   Determination   policy
authorize specific enlistment grades based on minimum Total  Active  Federal
Military Service (TAFMS) requirements.  At the  time  of  his  28  May  1996
enlistment, the applicant had accumulated six years, ten  months,  and  five
days of TAFMS.  Since he did not meet the  minimum  TAFMS  requirements  for
enlistment grade E-6 (ten years), the applicant  was  authorized  enlistment
grade E-5.  This provision is included on the Enlistment Agreement, AF  Form
3006, Section I, and Item A, which the applicant  acknowledged  on  date  of
enlistment.  Applicant’s enlistment in the Regular Air Force in pay grade E-
5, effective and with date of rank (DOR) 27 August 1995, is correct  and  in
compliance with policy.  They recommend denial of  the  applicant’s  request
for enlistment grade correction.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is attached at  Exhibit
D.



APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and states  that  it  has  been
approximately two years  and  five  months  of  sweating  daily,  trying  to
conceal the embarrassment and asking for help to find a solution to what  he
considers a  medical  condition.   He  originally  requested  help  for  the
constant sweating  condition,  for  which  he  still  patiently  waits.   He
inquired about the entire  enlistment  process  and  the  possibility  of  a
Medical Evaluation Board.  He does not condone methods used  for  enlistment
of personnel, and tactics and techniques used to make goals.  To be  labeled
“unsuitable and subject to administrative separation” without some  form  of
a workable solution, would encourage him to seek legal consultation to  have
his case litigated through the civil judicial system.

In reference to AFPC/DPPAE’s advisory, he states that he made senior  master
sergeant in the spring of 1995 with 14 years of good service.   The  request
for technical sergeant was due to the grade and date of rank chart  on  page
147 of AETCI 36-2002,  Rule  1,  Notes  #4.   He  never  knew,  nor  was  it
explained to him exactly how much TAFMS he would have.  Since  returning  to
the Air Force, he has learned that he does not qualify  for  the  Montgomery
GI Bill, nor will he fall under the old retirement system.  There  would  be
no exceptions or regard  as  to  highest  rank  held,  the  non-commissioned
officer (NCO) Academy and Senior NCO Academy that was  accomplished  through
the Air Force Reserves would not  be  honored  by  the  Regular  Air  Force;
although, reservists are used world wide to play  critical  roles  with  the
military.  He states that it turns his stomach  when  he  thinks  about  all
that he has been through, and what was expected of recruiters whether  right
or wrong, just to make goals  during  his  14  months  with  the  recruiting
service.  A responsible party outside of the recruiting realm should  review
the tactics and techniques used.  He honestly feels that he was mislead  and
or misinformed of procedures, entitlements, and  benefits  that  would  have
greatly impacted his decision to accept enlistment back into the Air  Force.
 The sacrifices were numerous and some unbearable at times.

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit F.

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, reviewed this application  and  states
that he concurs  with  the  rationale  expressed  by  AFMPC/DPAMM,  and  has
nothing further to add regarding applicant’s medical condition.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit G.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 8 June 2000, a copy of the Air Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant for review and response within 30  days.   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 timely filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice   of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;  however,
we do not find  applicant's  numerous  assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,
sufficiently persuasive to  override  the  rationale  provided  by  the  Air
Force.  Therefore, we agree with the recommendation of  the  Air  Force  and
adopt the rational expressed as  the  basis  for  our  conclusion  that  the
applicant failed to sustain his burden  of  establishing  the  existence  of
either an error  or  an  injustice  warranting  favorable  action  on  these
requests.  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 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 9 August 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Clarence D. Long, Member
                  Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Feb 99, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAMM, dated 20 May 99.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 10 Jun 99, w/atchs.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 19 Jul 99
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 6 Jun 00.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Jun 00.





                                MARTHA MAUST
                                Panel Chair