RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-01595
            INDEX CODE:  110-00
            COUNSEL:  VFW

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His separation from the Air Force be changed from discharge to retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was involuntarily discharged from  the  Air  Force  after  more  than  18
successful years of honorable  service.   His  rights  were  not  adequately
protected throughout the administrative discharge proceedings.  He  was  put
under pressure to waive his rights to  a  medical  board  hearing,  possible
probation, medical treatment, and  rehabilitation.   He  was  not  counseled
with respect to the long-term consequences of his waiver in  terms  of  lost
benefits.

He applied for a follow-on assignment to Bergstrom AFB, TX while serving  an
isolated  tour  in  Thule,  Greenland.   While  in  Greenland,  his   family
continued to reside in Austin, TX where they had purchased a  home  and  his
wife had begun a career.  His request was not granted and  he  was  assigned
to Altus AFB, OK.  Further attempts at reassignment  to  Bergstrom  AFB  for
humanitarian reasons were not granted either.   His 11-year old son came  to
live with him at Altus AFB because his unruly behavior was too much for  his
spouse to handle.  While at Altus AFB there were  allegations  that  he  was
abusive in disciplining his son.  However,  there  were  no  formal  charges
made by civilian authorities and the Family Advocacy staff  took  no  notice
of the incident.

Under increasing pressure brought on by  separation  from  his  family,  his
son's unruly behavior, and continued pressure to acquiesce to shift  changes
at work, he left his duty  section  without  proper  relief  and  failed  to
report to duty the following morning.  His commander  subsequently  referred
him to mental health  for  an  evaluation.   The  mental  health  evaluation
revealed that he suffered from a  character  and  behavior  disorder,  which
ultimately led to his discharge from the Air Force.

He served well and faithfully for over 17 years with  reports  of  excellent
performance and no misconduct throughout.  Job requirements that put him  in
an  untenable  situation  with  respect  to  supervising  his  son  led   to
increasing stress that  culminated  in  his  misconduct.   From  that  point
forward the Air Force pressured him to make it easy for them by waiving  his
rights and requesting that he be  discharged.   The  Air  Force  could  have
retained him until he was retirement eligible but did not.

In support of his  request  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement  and
character references.  Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on  11
Jun 68.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of  technical  sergeant,
having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Sep 80.

On 16  Apr  86,  applicant  was  notified  by  his  commander  that  he  was
recommending that he be discharged from the Air  Force  in  accordance  with
AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-11i(1).  The specific  reason  for  this  action  was
that he was diagnosed as having a narcissistic  personality  disorder  which
was so severe as to interfere with his duty  performance  and  conduct.   He
was advised of his rights in this matter and  acknowledged  receipt  of  the
notification on that same date.  On 18 Apr  86,  after  consulting  counsel,
applicant offered a conditional waiver of  his  rights  associated  with  an
administrative discharge board hearing contingent on his receipt of no  less
than an honorable discharge.  On that same date, after  consulting  counsel,
he waived his right  to  special  consideration  for  probation  of  lengthy
service airmen and indicated that he "desired to be separated from  the  Air
Force as quickly as possible with an honorable discharge."

On 1 May 86, in a legal review of  the  case  file,  the  wing  staff  judge
advocate (JA) found the case  legally  sufficient  and  recommend  that  the
discharge authority approve the honorable discharge  and  forward  the  case
through the major command (MAJCOM) to AFCP for final action.  On 19 May  86,
the discharge authority concurred with the JA  recommendation.   On  28  May
86, in a legal review of the case, the Mobility Air Command  (MAC)/JA  found
a procedural error in the member's conditional waiver,  in  that  under  the
discharge provisions, service can only be characterized  as  honorable,  and
recommended that he submit an unconditional waiver  or  demand  a  discharge
board.  In an additional legal review of the case, AFPC/JA found it  legally
sufficient despite the language in AFR 39-10 since there  was  no  prejudice
to the respondent.  On 11 Jul 86, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the  Air
Force, directed that he be discharged from the  Air  Force  without  lengthy
service probation.  He was discharged on 18 Jul 86 after serving  18  years,
1 month, and 8 days on active duty.  He was issued  an  Honorable  Discharge
certificate.

The following  is  a  resume  of  his  Airman  Performance  Report  profile,
commencing with the report closing 2 Mar 77.

      PERIOD ENDING    PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

       2 Mar 77        8
      30 Oct 77        9
      30 Oct 78        8
       9 Mar 79        9
       9 Mar 80        8
      31 Aug 80        8
      31 Aug 81        9
      14 Jun 82        8
      15 Feb 83        9
      27 Jul 83        9
      23 Apr 84        9
      23 Apr 85        9
      15 Apr 86        8

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant  reviewed  applicant's  request  and  recommends
denial.  The  Medical  Consultant  states  that  he  was  diagnosed  with  a
narcissistic personality disorder that was of such severity  as  to  prevent
performance of his duties and  administrative  separation  was  recommended.
He clearly began experiencing work and family  related  problems  that  were
aggravated by prolonged separation from his wife and the  behavior  problems
of their child.  Instead of seeking professional help  through  medical  and
social channels, he decided to seek separation from the  Air  Force  as  the
best alternative to his problems, sacrificing his  retirement  and  benefits
in the process.  There is no evidence of the military  seeking  a  best  and
rapid solution in effecting rapid separation.  Rather, the records  indicate
repeated attempts by medical and legal personnel to address  the  losses  he
would incur should he continue to  pursue  his  desire  to  be  out  of  the
military.  He had  no  psychological  disorder  that  would  have  warranted
consideration in the disability evaluation system.  Therefore,  he  was  not
eligible for a medical separation or retirement.  Approval  of  his  request
for reassignment to Bergstrom may have solved  some  of  his  problems.   We
have seen that he continued to have post-service difficulties  in  his  job,
difficulties which may well have followed him to a duty station  in  TX  had
that been allowed (see Exhibit C).

The  Military   Personnel   Management   Specialist,   Separations   Branch,
AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed  applicant's  request  and  recommends  denial.   DPPRS
states  that  the  discharge  was  consistent  with   the   procedural   and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation  at  the  time  of  his
discharge.  The discharge action was within the discretion of the  discharge
authority  and  he  was  provided  full  administrative  due  process.   His
military service was properly reviewed  and  appropriate  action  was  taken
(see Exhibit D).

The Directorate of Personnel Programs Management, Special Programs  Section,
AFPC/DPPRRP, reviewed applicant's request  and  recommends  denial.   DPPRRP
states that an enlisted member must have 20 years of  total  active  federal
military service (TAFMS) to be eligible for retirement.  He did not have  20
years at the time of his discharge.  He only had 18 years, 1  month,  and  8
days at active service at the time of his separation.  He  is  not  eligible
(nor is he requesting) to be retired under the  15-year  Retirement  Program
because it was not enacted into law  until  FY93  by  the  National  Defense
Authorization Act.  There are no provisions of law that allow for him to  be
retired in any grade (see Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel responded to the advisory and in further  support  of  the  request,
provided copies of Veterans Affairs Medical  Center  (VAMC)  documents  (see
Exhibit G).

_________________________________________________________________

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
the actions taken to effect his discharge were improper or contrary  to  the
provisions of the governing regulations that were in  effect  at  the  time.
Applicant’s 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.  The facts and  events  of
the case clearly do not support the applicant’s claim that he was  pressured
into waiving his rights or that he was  not  provided  counseling  regarding
the  long-term  consequences  of  his  decision.   In  fact,  the  available
evidence  clearly  indicates  that  the  applicant   was   provided   proper
counseling and the opportunity to present his case  before  the  appropriate
forum, however, he elected  to  waive  the  administrative  discharge  board
process  and  requested  conditional  separation.   Evidence  has  not  been
provided that would lead  us  to  believe  otherwise.   We  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  his  burden
that he has suffered either an error or  an  injustice.  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 30 May 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
      Ms. Martha Maust, Member
      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Jun 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 7 Aug 00.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 25 Aug 00.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 25 Sep 00.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 13 Oct 00.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Counsel, dated 17 Apr 01, w/atchs.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair