RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-00980
            INDEX CODE:  131.09; 108.00

            COUNSEL:  COL JANE WEAVER; DAV

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The 459th AW/CC Memorandum of 8 November 1995 to  the  22nd  AF/IG
declining to  investigate  her  6  September  1995  DoD  IG  complaint
alleging reprisal, discrimination, and abuse of discretion  concerning
the AF Form 348, Line of Duty (LOD) Determination, be changed, and  an
Attachment  Report  of  Investigation  (ROI)  to  that  memorandum  be
created;

2.  She be credited with participation for the period 9 August 1994  -
12 July 1996 for satisfactory years of service;

3.  She be credited with participation for the period 23 November 1999
through  completion  of  recommended  medical  care   and   separation
processing;

4.  The 459th AW/IG, 459th AW/CC and 22nd AF/CVA Findings that  her  5
October 1996 IG Complaint of Unfair Promotion  Practices  (Failure  to
comply with AFR 39-29)  by  the  459th  AES/CC  was  substantiated  be
restored;

5.  The 459th Commander’s original statements in Section 16 of AF Form
348 be restored, and formal LOD determinations be generated  for  each
medical condition not listed on the initial form, but diagnosed during
the Comprehensive Clinical Evaluation  Program  (CCEP)  for  Gulf  War
Related Illnesses or during follow-up;

6.  She be promoted to MSgt, effective 12 September 1992 or  1 January
1994, and SMSgt sometime between 1996 and March 2000;

7.  She be refunded  the  Servicemen’s  Group  Life  Insurance  (SGLI)
premiums she was forced  to  pay  for  those  months  she  was  denied
participation credit; and,

8.  She be  made  eligible  to  retire  with  at  least  20  years  of
satisfactory service.

By letter dated 9 April 2001, applicant requested that the  number  of
unit training assembly (UTA) drills she wants reflected in the  record
is 48 per year.  She indicates that due to financial hardship, she was
forced to cash the check for disability severance pay, but is  willing
to repay all monies she received, if the Board corrects her record  to
show she is eligible for a 20-year retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reasons  the  applicant  believes  the  records  to  be  in  error
or unjust  and  documentary   evidence   submitted   in   support   of
her application are included as Exhibit A, with Attachments 1  through
52.  A video cassette recording of the 60th AES broadcast on  “Eye  on
America” is also included.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, a member  of  the  Air  Force  Reserve,  was  processed
through the Disability Evaluation System  (DES)  when  her  disability
case was referred to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB)  in
December 1999, for  a  diagnosis  of  dysthymic  disorder.   The  IPEB
recommended discharge with severance pay with a 10 percent  disability
rating.  She did not agree with the IPEB’s recommendation and appeared
before the Formal Physical  Evaluation  Board  (FPEB)  represented  by
counsel.  The FPEB recommended discharge with severance pay and  a  10
percent  disability  rating.   She  did  not  agree  with  the  FPEB’s
recommendation and submitted a rebuttal.  Her disability  case,  along
with her rebuttal, was forwarded to the Secretary  of  the  Air  Force
Personnel Council (SAFPC) for their review and final processing.   The
SAFPC upheld the recommendations of the IPEB and FPEB and, on 6  March
2000, her discharge was directed which was effective 16 April 2000.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicant's military records, are contained  in  the  letters
prepared by the appropriate offices of the  Air  Force.   Accordingly,
there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The Directorate of Personnel, AFRC/DPM, recommended disapproval of all
of the applicant’s requests.  With respect to the  LOD  determination,
changing  the  originally  approved  AF  Form  348,   Line   of   Duty
Determination, would serve no purpose  since  she  received  the  best
possible finding; i.e., “In Line of Duty.”

With respect to promotions, the applicant was denied promotion to MSgt
in 1993 by  her  commander.   Her  subsequent  IG  complaint  alleging
promotions were based on favoritism  and  not  on  qualifications  was
unsubstantiated.   Since  she  never  held  the  rank  of  MSgt,  they
recommended that the request for promotion to SMSgt also be denied.

Regarding award of pay and points for the period 9 August  1994  -  12
July 1996, the applicant was denied participation  while  waiting  for
the Administrative Discharge Board.  Since she  did  not  participate,
she should not be compensated with pay or points.  Her request for pay
and points for the period 9 November 1999  -  April  2000  is  invalid
based on  her  medical  disqualification  for  worldwide  duty,  which
rendered her ineligible to participate for pay and  points.   However,
if the Board decides to grant relief, her record should  be  corrected
to show award of 19 inactive duty  training  (IDT)  points  for  R/RYE
25 April 1994 - 24 April 1995; 35 IDT points for R/RYE 25 April 1995 -
24 April 1996; 14 annual tour (AT) points for each year; promotion  to
MSgt; and, subsequently, promotion to SMSgt.

The  Deputy  Staff  Judge  Advocate,  AFRC/JAA,  nonconcurred  in  the
appropriateness of crediting the applicant with pay and points for the
period  9  August  1994  -  12  July  1996.   The   finding   of   the
Administrative Discharge Board  does  not,  retroactively,  constitute
grounds for awarding pay and points for the period  of  time  she  was
awaiting the discharge board.

Complete copies of the AFRC/DPM evaluation, with attachment,  and  the
legal review from AFRC/JAA are at Exhibit C.

The  Chief  Medical  Consultant,  AFBCMR,  addressed  the   disability
retirement  issues  of  the  case.   Records  indicate  the  applicant
developed  multiple  medical  symptoms   during   or   shortly   after
participating in the Gulf War and was finally evaluated under guidance
of Gulf War Syndrome (GWS) criteria, completing this in February 1999.
 Her earlier service as an aeromedical evacuation specialist had  been
curtailed because of her medical complaints, but other duties were not
restricted.  In the course of her GWS evaluation,  she  was  diagnosed
with   dysthymic   disorder;   irritable   bowel   syndrome,   chronic
constipation; headaches; fatigue;  arthralgias  of  arms  and  wrists;
irregular menses; and sleep disorder.  Because of the interference  in
duty performance occasioned  by  the  single  diagnosis  of  dysthymic
disorder, she was presented to a Medical  Evaluation  Board  (MEB)  in
November 1999, and referred to the Informal Physical Evaluation  Board
(IPEB) on 9 December 1999.  It recommended separation  with  severance
pay and 10% disability for what was felt to represent no more  than  a
mild social and industrial impairment.  This recommendation was upheld
by the Formal IPEB on 27  January  2000.   All  other  conditions  and
diagnoses were considered by  the  boards,  but  found  not  currently
unfitting or compensable.  While the applicant contends  that  certain
medical information was not available for board review, the nature  of
recurrent ulcer disease would have been found not unfitting  for  duty
and would not have affected the  outcome  of  the  boards’  decisions.
While her removal from flying duties many years before was related  to
this particular disorder (among others) different standards apply  for
flying vs. non-flying duties,  and  simply  having  a  history  of  or
current symptoms from ulcers is not, by itself, evidence of  unfitness
for other military duties.

Evidence of record establishes beyond all reasonable  doubt  that  the
applicant  was  properly  evaluated  and  rated,  that  the  level  of
compensation awarded prior to her separation was proper, and  that  no
error or injustice occurred in this case.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

The USAF Disability Division, AFPC/DPPD, agreed with the AFBCMR  Chief
Medical Consultant.  After a thorough review of the AFBCMR case  file,
they concluded that the applicant was treated  fairly  throughout  the
entire military disability evaluation process; that she  was  properly
rated under federal disability guidelines; and that she was afforded a
full and fair hearing, as required under military disability laws  and
policy.

AFPC/DPPD noted that under disability processing procedures, Air Force
Reserve personnel with  at  least  15,  but  less  than  20  years  of
satisfactory service, when the final  disposition  is  discharge  with
severance pay,  are  given  the  option  of  electing  discharge  with
severance pay under Title 10, USC, Section 1203, or  transfer  to  the
Inactive Status List  Reserve  Section  (ISLRS)  for  the  purpose  of
applying for early retirement  under  Title  10,  USC,  Chapter  1223,
Section 1273a(3).   Reservists  who  elect  disability  severance  pay
forfeit entitlement  to  retired  pay  under  the  Reserve  retirement
system.  Those who elect early retirement under ISLRS are entitled  to
retired pay at age 60.  In  the  applicant’s  case,  she  elected  the
estimated $30,416.40 in disability severance pay,  thereby  forfeiting
her Reserve retirement pay.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant, through counsel, disagreed  with  the  AFRC’s  advisory
opinions, stating that Reservists awaiting  administrative  separation
are  denied  participation  whereas  active  duty  personnel  who  are
awaiting trial by court-martial receive credit.  She argues  that  the
discrepancies on the AF Forms 348;  her  request  for  individual  LOD
determinations on all medical conditions for Gulf War  illnesses;  and
the refund of her SGLI premiums were not  addressed.   She  challenges
the Air Force response to her request for promotion and its failure to
address  documented  evidence  submitted   against   her   commander’s
noncompliance with  enlisted  promotion  regulations  and  her  proven
dishonesty  and  retaliatory  actions  against  another  member.   Her
complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Operations Division, SAF/IGQ, performed an extensive review
of all matters presented by the applicant and recommended  disapproval
of her  requests  to  change  the  IG  findings;  restoration  of  the
commander’s original statements on the AF Form 348; and restoration of
the Findings that the  applicant’s  5 October  1996  IG  complaint  of
unfair promotion practices (failure to comply with AFR 39-29)  by  the
commander was substantiated.   They  recommended  that  the  remaining
issues, credit for satisfactory service for the period 9 August 1994 -
12 July 1996; crediting participation while she  was  in  “P4”  status
from November 1999 until her medical separation  in  April  2000;  and
promotion to SMSgt sometime between 1996 and March 2000, be  addressed
by other agencies.

The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In separate communications, the applicant provided a 16-page response.
 In another, she asks that the Board address her application dated  31
March 2000, not the abbreviated version of 19 July 2000; that  medical
retirement not be considered; and that the only medical issues  to  be
considered should be about LOD.   She  also  provided  attachments  in
response to the Air Force evaluations.

The applicant’s complete responses, with attachments, are  at  Exhibit
J.

Counsel provided a statement supporting the  applicant’s  requests  to
change the IG findings; credit satisfactory service to 20 plus  years;
change the AF Form 348 (Line of Duty Determination); promotion to MSgt
and above; and change her discharge to reflect  a  medical  retirement
with the addition of the ulcer  condition.   She  maintains  that  her
service time was during a period  of  combat  and  requests  that  her
records be changed accordingly.  Counsel  stated  that  the  applicant
asks that they focus on the issues of combat  service  and  her  ulcer
condition not being considered by the MEB/PEB.  The applicant and  co-
counsel will argue the remaining issues.

Counsel’s response is at Exhibit K.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

After responding to the questions  posed  by  the  AFBCMR  staff,  the
Director of Military  Law,  HQ  AFRC/JAM,  recommended  denial.   They
advised that the period the applicant was denied participation for pay
and points from August 1994 to July 1996, pending finalization of  the
recommendation for administrative  discharge,  was  not  an  error  or
injustice and no correction is warranted.  They also advised that  the
period she was medically disqualified from participating for  pay  and
points from November 1999 to April 2000, was not an error or injustice
and no correction is warranted.  With respect to both periods, if  the
Board  grants  relief,  it  should  be  limited  to   the   award   of
participation points only.

AFRC/JAM’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit L.

The  Directorate  of  Personnel,  AFRC/DPM,  recommended  disapproval,
reiterating that the finding of  the  Administrative  Discharge  Board
does not retroactively constitute grounds for award of pay and points.
 If the decision is to grant relief, they recommended  the  record  be
corrected to show award of 19 IDT points for R/R year 25 April 1994  -
24 April 1995 and 35 IDT points for R/R year 25 April 1995 - 24  April
1996.  She received incapacitation pay for the period 23 August  -  23
December 1999.  According to  AFRC/JAM,  no  further  compensation  is
required.

The AFRC/DPM evaluation is at Exhibit M.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant provided specific comments to the advisory opinions  and
noted that the evaluations were not responsive regarding the dates she
would have been eligible for promotion.

Her complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit O.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or  injustice  in  regard  to  applicant’s
request for eligibility for retirement, with 20 years of  satisfactory
service.  In this respect, we note the following:

      a.  The Administrative Discharge Board (ADB) took an  inordinate
amount of time to determine whether or not  the  applicant  should  be
retained.  During this lengthy period of time, 9  August  1994  to  12
July 1996, the applicant was not allowed to  participate  for  pay  or
points, which prevented her from obtaining credit for  service  toward
retirement.  Once the ADB recommended she be retained, she was allowed
to participate.

      b.  In November 1999, due to medical problems, she was processed
through the physical disability system.   On  6  March  2000,  it  was
determined that she should be  discharged  from  the  Air  Force  with
entitlement to severance pay with a 10 percent disability rating.  The
applicant was provided the option of either  electing  discharge  with
severance pay or early retirement with entitlement to  retirement  pay
at age 60, with over 17  years  of  satisfactory  service.   Applicant
elected to be discharged with entitlement to severance pay and  on  16
April 2000, she was discharged from the Air Force  Reserve.   Had  the
discharge proceedings been completed in a timely manner, and given her
participation history, it appears that the applicant would  have  been
able to complete 20  years  of  satisfactory  service  for  retirement
purposes.

      c.  The evidence of record  indicates  that  the  applicant  was
placed on the Comprehensive Clinical  Evaluation  Program  (CCEP)  for
Gulf War-related illnesses.  Subsequently, the  Disability  Evaluation
System determined that her mild  dysthymic  disorder,  rated  at  10%,
occurred while in the line of duty.  Other conditions were  diagnosed;
however,  they  were  not  compensable  or  ratable  at  the  time  of
discharge.  Even though she was medically disqualified  for  worldwide
duty and, according to the office of primary responsibility, could not
be compensated with pay or points during this  period,  in  our  view,
based on her previous participation, she could have amassed enough pay
and points for a  satisfactory  year  of  service  during  the  period
preceding her medical disqualification.


      d.  Applicant has requested that she be made eligible to  retire
with at  least  20  years  of  service.   She  acknowledges  that  the
severance pay she received will have to be refunded to the  government
and she is willing to repay it if she is  allowed  to  retire.   After
reviewing  the  circumstances  of  this  case,  we  believe  that  the
applicant’s request for retirement should be favorably considered.  In
this respect, we noted the inordinate amount of time it took  the  ADB
to render a decision in this case, her overall record of participation
for 17 years, and the short period of time required to obtain 20 years
of service.  During the ADB processing, 9 August 1994 - 12 July  1996,
the  applicant  was  denied  participation  for  pay  and  points  and
approximately two years of satisfactory service toward retirement.  In
view of the above  determination  and  in  an  effort  to  offset  any
possibility of an injustice, we recommend her records be corrected  to
the extent indicated below.

4.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable error  or  injustice  with  respect  to  the
applicant’s request for a refund of the SGLI premiums  she  paid  when
she was denied participation; promotion to MSgt and above; and changes
to documents related to her IG complaints and LOD determinations.

      a.  With respect to her payment of SGLI premiums  when  she  was
not participating for pay and points, had she died during this period,
by law, her family would have been  entitled  to  the  $200,000  death
benefit.  Therefore, no basis exists to recommend favorable action  on
this request.

      b.  Regarding her request  for  promotions,  the  applicant  was
denied  promotion  to  MSgt  by  her  commander.   A   subsequent   IG
investigation found her allegations of unfair promotion  practices  to
be unsubstantiated.  As such, we  find  that  no  error  or  injustice
occurred.  Since she has never held the rank of MSgt, her request  for
promotion to SMSgt is without merit.

       c.  We  found  insufficient  relevant  evidence  of  error   or
injustice warranting LOD determinations  for  each  medical  condition
which  was  diagnosed  during  the  CCEP.   While  the  applicant  was
diagnosed with other conditions that could be unfitting, at  the  time
of discharge, they were not compensable or  ratable.   Therefore,  the
applicant’s request for  separate  LOD  determinations  for  insomnia,
migraine headaches, irritable bowel syndrome,  allergic  rhinitis  and
urticaria is denied.  Moreover, as indicated  by  the  Directorate  of
Personnel, AFRC/DPM, she received the best  possible  finding  of  “in
line of duty.”

      d.  We noted the applicant’s requests that documents be  changed
or created with respect to her LOD determination  and  IG  complaints.
However, we have seen no evidence to convince us that these  documents
are in error or unjust.   Therefore, we find  no  basis  to  recommend
changing these documents or generating others.

5.  The documentation provided with this case was sufficient  to  give
the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a  personal
appearance, with or without counsel, would not have  materially  added
to that understanding.  Therefore, the request for a  hearing  is  not
favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

    a.  She was credited with an additional 10 paid active duty points
and 23 paid inactive duty points during the retirement/retention  year
25 April 1994 to 24 April 1995, resulting in 64  total  points  and  a
year of satisfactory Federal service for retirement.

    b.  She was credited with 14 paid active duty points and  35  paid
inactive duty points during  the  retirement/retention  year  25 April
1995 to 24 April 1996, resulting in 64 total points and a satisfactory
year of Federal service for retirement.

    c.  She was credited with 14 paid active duty points and  35  paid
inactive duty points during  the  retirement/retention  year  25 April
1999 to 24 April 2000, resulting in 64 total points and a satisfactory
year of Federal service for retirement.

    d.  On 16 April 2000, she was not discharged under the  provisions
of AFI 36-3212, but on 25 April 2000,  she  elected  retirement  under
Title 10, United States Code, Chapter 1223,  Section  12731a(3),  with
entitlement to retired pay at age 60.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 2 August 2001, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Panel Chair
                 Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
                 Mr. Clarence D. Long, III, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Mar and 19 Jul 00, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFRC/DPM, dated 13 Oct 00, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 31 Oct 00.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 7 Nov 00.
   Exhibit F.  Letters, SAF/MIBR, dated 22 Nov 00.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, Counsel, dated 19 Dec 00, w/atchs.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/IGQ, dated 12 Jun 00, w/atchs.
   Exhibit J.  Letters, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.
   Exhibit K.  Letter, Counsel, dated 24 Jan 01.
   Exhibit L.  Letter, AFRC/JAM, dated 16 Apr 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit M.  Letter, AFRC/DPM, dated 10 May 01.
   Exhibit N.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 1 Jun 01.
   Exhibit O.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Jun 01, w/atchs.




                                   HENRY ROMO, JR.
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR 00-00980




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to [applicant], be corrected to show that:

            a.  She was credited with an additional 10 paid active
duty points and 23 paid inactive duty points during the
retirement/retention year 25 April 1994 to 24 April 1995, resulting in
64 total points and a year of satisfactory Federal service for
retirement.

            b.  She was credited with 14 paid active duty points and
35 paid inactive duty points during the retirement/retention year
25 April 1995 to 24 April 1996, resulting in 64 total points and a
satisfactory year of Federal service for retirement.

            c.  She was credited with 14 paid active duty points and
35 paid inactive duty points during the retirement/retention year
25 April 1999 to 24 April 2000, resulting in 64 total points and a
satisfactory year of Federal service for retirement.

            d.  On 16 April 2000, she was not discharged under the
provisions of AFI 36-3212, but on 25 April 2000, she elected
retirement under Title 10, United States Code, Chapter 1223, Section
12731a(3), with entitlement to retired pay at age 60.





            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency