ADDENDUM TO
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-02892
            INDEX CODE:  110.00
      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  NO

      SSN   HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Since  she did  not  receive the full  requested  relief  in her 9  October
2000 application; she now requests reconsideration for 16 actions regarding
her involuntary discharge.  She is requesting the following relief:

            a.  Immediate removal of AFBCMR Case Number 00-02892, Record of
Proceedings, from the searchable DoD Electronic Reading Room.

            b.  The two  disciplinary  records,  TAC  Form  27,  Record  of
Individual Counseling dated 10 November 1981 and the Record  of  Counseling
dated 23 November 1981, written by a GS-9, civilian  (Mr.  S.)  be  removed
from her records.

            c.  All punishments and further records "generated by or  from”
Mr. S's disciplinary forms be removed from her records: Letter of Reprimand
dated  20  November  1981,  for  failing  to  report  for   duty;   Letter,
Notification of Intent to Impose Nonjudicial Punishment  dated  1  December
1981; Article 15 dated  9  December  1981  for  reporting  late  for  duty;
Airman's Performance Report (APR) rendered for the period 10 December  1980
through 9 December 1981, the APR was lowered  because  of  the  Article  15
dated 9 December 1981;  Setting  Aside  of  the    Nonjudicial   Punishment
dated 29 December 1981; Memorandum for Record dated 24 December 1981.

            d.  All documents utilizing the disciplinary  records  "written
by" Mr. S. be removed from her records: Letter of  Notification,  paragraph
2a, dated 9 February 1982, TAC Form 27,  Record  of  Individual  Counseling
dated 12 November 1981; Commander's Report, paragraph 2a dated  9  February
1982.

            e.  All documents that were "generated  by  or  from"  Mr.  S.,
disciplinary records, and any and all retaliation from Mr. S. be


removed from her records: Letter of Notification,  paragraph  2b  dated   9
February 1982;  Commander's Report,  paragraph 2b dated  9  February  1982;
Letter   of   Notification,   paragraph  2c   dated  9    February    1982;
Commander's   Report,  paragraph  2c  dated 9 February  1982;   Letter   of
Notification,   paragraph   2d  dated  9   February    1982;    Commander's
Report,   paragraph  2d  dated 9 February  1982;  Letter  of  Notification,
 paragraph  2e  dated 9 February 1982;  Commander's  Report,  paragraph  2e
dated 9 February  1982;  Letter  of  Notification,  paragraph  2f  dated  9
February  1982;  Commanders's  Report, paragraph 5.e.(1) dated  9  February
1982;  Commander's  Report,  paragraph 5.e.(2)  dated  9   February   1982;
Commander's   Report,  paragraph  5.g  dated 9 February 1982.

            f.  Add  the  following  information  (Air  Force  Commendation
Medal, Air Force  Training  Ribbon,  NCO  Professional  Military  Education
Ribbon, Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon with  one  Bronze  Star,  Air
Force Longevity Service Ribbon, Air Force Good Conduct Medal with  one  Oak
Leaf Cluster, NCO Leadership School, Airman of  the  month,  Nominated  for
Airman of the Base) to Commander's Report paragraph 5.h. dated  9  February
1982.

            g.  Add "Myositis" to Commander's Report paragraph 5.j. dated 9
February 1982.

            h.  Delete from Commander's Report paragraph 8.

            i.  The erroneous label of "Personality  Disorder"  be  removed
from  her  records to  include:  Letter  of  Notification, dated 9 February
1982, Commander's Report dated 9 February  1982,  Legal  Review,  dated  17
February 1982, and DoD Electronic Reading Room.

            j.  All documents using Mr. S.'s disciplinary records  and  all
documents generated by Mr.  S.'s  disciplinary  records  as  "evidence"  be
removed from her records.

            k.  Completely remove the Letter of  Notification,  Commander's
Report and the Legal Review because Air Force Regulation, DoD  Instructions
and Directives were not appropriately followed.

            l.  Her rank be reinstated to staff sergeant as of  3  February
1982.

            m.  Her discharge dated 22 February 1982 be completely  removed
from all her records.

            n.  She be PCS'd to her home address on 22 February 1982.



            o.  She receive fair compensation for
                  1.  Unjust and erroneous "Personality Disorder" Discharge
                  2.  Compensatory damages
                  3.  Punitive damages
                  4.  Full reinstatement
                  5.  Promotion from staff sergeant to technical sergeant.
                  6.  Concealing diagnosis of Myositis
                  7.  Cost made to Chiropractor in 1984.
                  8.  Reimbursement for cost of maintenance of the service
incurred condition.
                  9.  Compensation for poor medical treatment received
while on active duty and permanent physical damage of her left shoulder.
                 10.  Unnecessary physical and emotional suffering.
                 11.  Unfair and unequal treatment.

            p.  She be entitled to back pay as an active duty  member  from
22 February 1982 to the current date of July 2001 with full credit for time
served to total 25 years, 10 months for retirement, allowed to continue her
career in the active Air Force, assigned to nearest Air Force Base to  home
of record - March AFB, CA; or in the alternative be  allowed  an  honorable
discharge with no derogatory remarks on the character of the discharge  and
the  discharge  should  state  the  Myositis  is  service  connected.   Her
discharge should be effective in July 2001 and she be entitled  to  a  full
retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was honorably discharged 22 February 1982, in  the  grade  of
sergeant.  She served 6 years, 5 months of active duty service.

On 9 October 2000, the applicant submitted an application for correction of
her military records to have the reason for separation and her reenlistment
code changed to allow  her  to  return  to  military  service.   The  Board
considered and partially granted the applicant's request on 10 April  2001.
For  an  accounting  of  the  facts  and  circumstances   surrounding   the
applicant's separation, and, the rationale of the earlier decision  by  the
Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit H.

On 14 July 2001, the applicant submitted  a  request  for  reconsideration,
contending that she  was  not  granted  the  full  relief  requested.   The
applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM states they will address only the military justice issues.   The
applicant has not provided any evidence in support of her allegations  that
her personality disorder and the documented misconduct are a result of  the
Air Force's failure to correctly treat  her  condition  (Myositis)  from  a
muscle strain injury.  She further contends that the  disciplinary  actions
were a result of her civilian supervisor harassment.  The applicant has not
provided evidence to substantiate her claim.  JAJM found  no  discrepancies
in the processing of the applicant's discharge paperwork.

Commanders use nonjudicial punishment  to  dispose  of  certain  misconduct
without trial by  court-martial  providing  the  service  member  does  not
object.  The commander notifies the service member of  the  nature  of  the
charged offense, the supporting evidence and the commander's intent to  use
nonjudicial punishment.  The service member then  has  the  opportunity  to
consult with legal counsel to determine whether to accept  the  nonjudicial
punishment or demand trial by court-martial.  Acceptance of the nonjudicial
punishment is a choice of forum, not an admission of guilt.

When a service member accepts  nonjudicial  punishment,  they  may  have  a
hearing with the commander.  The service member may have a spokesperson  at
the hearing, and may request that witnesses appear  and  testify,  and  can
also present evidence.  The service member's commander  must  consider  any
information provided during the hearing and must be convinced  by  reliable
evidence that the service member did commit the misconduct before  imposing
punishment.  The service member may appeal  the  commander's  determination
and the severity of the punishment imposed to the  next  higher  commander.
The appeal authority can set aside the punishment, decrease  the  severity,
or deny the appeal.  Receipt of nonjudicial punishment does not  constitute
a criminal conviction.

The applicant had competent  legal  counsel  at  both  of  her  Article  15
nonjudicial  punishment  proceedings.   The  applicant  admitted   to   her
commander that she falsified that she was  late.   She  had  done  this  to
receive an Article 15, which would lead to a  discharge.   The  applicant's
commander set aside the  9  December  1981,  Article  15.   There  were  no
discrepancies in the processing of the  applicant's  Article  15,  dated  3
February 1982.  The applicant did not  contest  any  issues  regarding  the
sufficiency of the evidence presented in the Article 15 proceedings to  her
commander.  The applicant's commander found  she  committed  the  offenses.
Her nonjudicial punishment was within the legal limits for the


misconduct committed.  A set aside should only  be  granted  when  evidence
demonstrates an  error  or  a  clear  injustice.   The  applicant  has  not
submitted clear and convincing evidence to  support  setting  aside  the  9
December 1981, nonjudicial punishment.  Therefore based on evidence to  the
contrary, they recommend the request be denied (Exhibit J).

AFPC/DPPDS states the purpose of the military disability evaluation system
is to maintain a fit and vital force by separating or retiring members who
are unable to perform the duties of their office,  rank  and  grade.   The
members who are separated or retired by reasons of physical disability may
be eligible for certain disability compensation.  The  Medical  Evaluation
Board (MEB) makes the decision whether a member is to be processed through
the disability evaluation system, when the member is determined  medically
disqualified  for  continued  military  service.   The  member's   medical
treatment facility makes the decision to conduct an MEB.  Service  members
who are separated or discharged from active service  based  on  a  service
connected medical condition are not considered unfit,  but  unsuitable  at
the time of their  release  should  contact  the  Department  of  Veterans
Affairs (DVA) for treatment and possible compensation.  The  DVA  provides
medical care for veterans after leaving active duty; and they may increase
or decrease a member's service connected disability rating  based  on  the
seriousness of the medical condition throughout the  member's  life  span.
They recommend denying the requested relief (Exhibit K).

AFPC/DPSF states commanders and supervisors in exercising their supervisory
authority and responsibility use letters of  counseling  and  reprimand  to
address and correct subordinates who have swayed from the acceptable  norms
of conduct or behavior, whether on or off duty.   The  use  of  letters  of
counseling helps maintain the established Air Force  standards  of  conduct
and behavior.

The letters of counseling and  reprimand  could  have  been  placed  in  an
Unfavorable Information Files (UIF), in accordance with  AFR  35-32,  which
was in effect at the time the applicant was on active duty.  The UIF  is  a
Unit Assigned Personnel Information File, and is destroyed or  returned  to
the originator.  There is no evidence to indicate the  disposition  of  the
letters; however, they were listed in the letter  of  notification  to  the
applicant to inform her that they would be used as a  rationale  to  affect
her discharge.

DPSF  further  states  the   applicant   has   not   submitted   with   her
reconsideration request any documentation  to  show  that  the  letters  of
counseling and reprimand were given in error.


Therefore, based on the information provided they recommend  the  requested
relief be denied (Exhibit L).

AFPC/DPPPWB states the applicant  was  promoted  to  staff  sergeant  on  1
October 1981.  She received a grade  reduction  for  failure  to  go  on  9
December 1981, which was set aside on  29  December  1981.   The  applicant
received an Article 15 on 3 February  1982  for  transferring  a  dangerous
prescription drug.  The punishment she received was reduction  in  rank  to
the grade of sergeant and forfeiture of $100.00 per month for  two  months.
If the Board were to set aside the Article 15, the applicant's date of rank
(DOR) would be the original date of 1  October  1981.   In  order  for  the
applicant to be eligible for promotion consideration to technical sergeant,
she would need a minimum of 24 months time in grade (TIG) and 8 years  time
in service (TIS).  The applicant has not met the requirements  as  she  was
discharged in 1982.  DPPPWB further states the enlisted performance  report
for the period ending 9 December 1981 is not  a  factor  in  the  promotion
process.  DPPPWB recommends the request be denied (Exhibit M).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states she  has  been  grossly  punished  for  injuries  she
sustained while on active duty.  She was the victim of constant harassment
from a civilian who was not in her chain of command.  She  further  states
she was not afforded the opportunity to heal after her injury to  be  able
to work pain free.   The  applicant  also  states  she  was  not  provided
adequate medical treatment for her injuries.  She was not  treated  fairly
and was the token female.  She requests the Board  release  her  from  the
punishment and reinstate her or issue a rating of  30  percent  disability
and to cleanse her records appropriately (Exhibit O).

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ USAF/JAG states the Privacy Act has not been violated  in  reference  to
the applicant's AFBCMR case number being printed on her revised DD Form 214
and a synopsis of her case being posted in  the  electronic  reading  room.
The Air Force may annotate a revised DD Form 214 in accordance with AFI 36-
3202, Table 4, Rule 38.  Although this form contains information  protected
by the Privacy Act and is only releasable with  the  consent  of  the  data
provider,  placing  of  the  AFBCMR  case  number  does   not   alter   the
releasability of the form.  The data on the form is  still  protected  from
unauthorized release.



Posting a synopsis of the applicant's AFBCMR case in the electronic reading
room is not an issue of violating her privacy.   The  applicant's  personal
information is not revealed and therefore is not a release of her  personal
information.  Furthermore, the Air Force does not release the DD  Form  214
to potential employers.  The Air Force gave the applicant that information,
which is an authorized  disclosure.   The  applicant  has  control  and  is
responsible for who she releases the form.

JAG notes that technically the Air Force has not violated the Privacy  Act,
however, the Air Force may have created a  difficult  situation  for  those
members who have separated and that have an AFBCMR  case.   Most  employers
will want to see the DD Form 214 and this may force the employee to  choose
between showing the amended DD 214 and facing the possibility of not  being
hired or to show the form  disclosing  the  information  protected  by  the
Privacy Act.  JAG further states that if it was the Air  Force's  intention
to allow non-federal employers to see the AFBCMR data, then maybe  the  Air
Force should take a more direct route of amending of notice by  listing  it
as a routine use of record.  But if the Air Force does not want non-federal
employers to see the data, then the AFBCMR could  remove  the  case  number
from the website (Exhibit P).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that a right to privacy is a personal  and  fundamental
right protected by the Constitution of  the  United  States.   Agencies  are
required by law to protect individuals' privacy and ensure the security  and
confidentiality of records.  The applicant lists  various  sections  of  the
Title 5 United States Code regarding releasing protected  information.   She
feels the AFBCMR case number is an identifying number and therefore by  this
being on her amended DD Form 214 and the posting the synopsis  of  her  case
on the electronic reading room has violated her right to privacy.

She feels the Physical Disability Division added erroneous words to  factual
medical documentation and has overlooked facts within her records.  This  is
a blatant disregard to the facts and  will  not  allow  her  fair  and  full
consideration.

The applicant further reiterates that she was not  afforded  proper  medical
treatment for her injuries and was not allowed to  transfer  or  retrain  so
that her injury could heal.  Also, there were two diagnoses of  Myositis  by
Air Force medical personnel at least eight months before her discharge.



She requests that any  other  identifying  particulars  that  may  exist  in
regard to AFBCMR Case 00-02892 be completely  removed  from  the  electronic
reading room (Exhibit Q).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After reviewing this application and the evidence  provided  in  support  of
the appeal,  we  are  not  persuaded  the  additional  requested  relief  is
warranted.  We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's  complete  submission  in
judging the merits of the case; however, we  agree  with  the  opinions  and
recommendations of the Air Force and adopt their rationale 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.  Based  on  the  documentation
in the applicant's records, it appears the processing of the  discharge  and
Article 15 proceedings were appropriate and accomplished in accordance  with
Air Force policy.  Additionally, she has not presented  persuasive  evidence
to support her assertion that the  Letters  of  Counseling  and  Letters  of
Notification were issued in error.  Furthermore, the  documentation  in  the
applicant’s medical records indicates she  was  not  processed  through  the
MDES because her medical condition did not render her unfit for duty.   With
regard to the Privacy Act issues, we find no basis  to  recommend  approval.
The information on the DD Form 214 is authorized by regulation  and  is  not
released to potential employers by the Air  Force.   Information  posted  to
the DOD Electronic Reading Room is  redacted  of  all  personal  information
such as the applicant’s name and social security number.  Therefore,  unless
the applicant reveals the docket number of her case, the information on  the
website is not identifiable as hers.  In view of  the  above  findings,  the
applicant’s remaining requests are moot.   Our  previous  decision  afforded
the  applicant  the  opportunity  to  apply  for  a  waiver   to   reenlist.
Therefore, we have no basis on which to  favorably  consider  the  requested
relief.
_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number  00-02892
in Executive Session on 18 November 2002, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member
                       Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit H.  Record of Proceedings, dated 25 April 2001,
                        with Exhibits.
      Exhibit I.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 14 July 2001, with
                        attachments.
      Exhibit J.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 18 March 2002
      Exhibit K.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 1 May 2002, with
                        attachments.
      Exhibit L.  Letter, AFPC/DPSF, dated 30 May 2002.
      Exhibit M.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 17 June 2002.
      Exhibit N.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 July 2002.
      Exhibit O.  Applicant's Rebuttal, dated 1 August 2002.
      Exhibit P.  Letter, HQ USAF/JAG, dated 17 September 2002.
      Exhibit Q.  Applicant's Rebuttals, dated 4 October 2002.




                                        PEGGY E. GORDON
                                        Panel Chair