RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01527
            INDEX NUMBER:  108.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) be resubmitted with it  noted  that
he had been restored to the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt) at the time
of the board.  He would also like the full  right  of  appeal  to  any
decision that the MEB might make.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge for disability was an injustice, since  the  restoration
of his grade to SSgt.  The MEB reviewed his records after he had  been
reduced to the grade of senior airman (SrA) and he believes it  had  a
substantial impact on their decision.  If the Article 15 had not  been
in his record, he would not have been over the high  year  of  tenure,
which may have  impacted  their  decision.   He  did  not  appeal  the
decision of the MEB because of the Article 15.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s entered active duty on 19 October 1981.

On 15 Apr 97, the applicant’s commander notified him of his intent  to
impose punishment under Article 15 for the applicant’s failure to  go,
without authority, on divers occasions.  On 29 Apr 97,  the  applicant
accepted Article 15  proceedings.   On  15  May  97,  the  applicant’s
commander imposed punishment consisting of reduction to the  grade  of
SrA.  The applicant appealed the punishment.  The appellate  authority
upheld the punishment.

On 16 May 97, a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB)  found  the  applicant
unfit for duty and recommended discharge with severance  pay.   On  27
May  97,  the  applicant  acknowledged  being  counseled  on  and  his
agreement with the findings and recommendations of the PEB.

On 20 Jul 97, the Secretary of  the  Air  Force  determined  that  the
applicant served satisfactorily in the grade of SSgt and on 21 Jul  97
directed that he be discharged from the Air Force  with  a  disability
rating of  ten  percent  effective  12  Sep  97.   The  applicant  was
discharged on this date with $41,550 in severance pay.

On 7 Sep 00, the AFBCMR considered requests from the applicant to  set
aside the Article 15 imposed on him on 15 May 97, to reinstate him  to
the grade of SSgt, and to consider  him  for  promotion  to  technical
sergeant (TSgt) prior to the date of his discharge from service.   The
Board granted the applicant’s request to reinstate him to the grade of
SSgt only.  A copy of the Record of Proceedings is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s
request.  The applicant now contends that  he  accepted  the  Informal
Physical Evaluation Board’s (IPEB) decision and did not appeal to  the
formal board because of  his  reduction  in  rank,  arguing  that  the
difference in the high year of tenure (HYT) between the two grades was
a factor in the IPEB’s decision.  He further argues that  he  did  not
appeal to the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) because the  HYT
of his reduced grade of SrA  would  have  resulted  in  little  or  no
disability compensation.  There is no evidence  that  the  applicant’s
reduction in rank had any bearing on the IPEB’s decision in this case.
 Furthermore, it is unlikely that the IPEB was aware of the Article 15
action on 15 May, which was the day before  the  IPEB  considered  his
case.  Had the applicant elected to exercise his right  to  appeal  to
the FPEB, his grade and it’s related HYT would not have had an  impact
on the deliberations of the formal board.

The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant   concurs   with   the   findings   and
recommendations of the applicant’s psychiatrists and the IPEB that the
applicant  was  unfit  for  continued  military  service  due  to  his
depression  and  that  his  personality  disorder  was  a  significant
aggravating condition.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD  recommends  denial  of  the   applicant’s   request.    The
applicant’s assumption that the MEB/PEB may have  been  influenced  by
the fact that he was demoted from SSgt to SrA during the period of his
board is  incorrect.   It  appears  that  the  nonjudicial  punishment
imposed on the applicant during  the  Apr  97  timeframe  was  ongoing
without the knowledge of either the MEB or PEB.  This is confirmed  on
the disability processing forms which all show him as a SSgt.  Further
attestation that the MEB/PEB process was  not  prejudiced  is  clearly
shown when his case was forwarded to the Secretary of  the  Air  Force
Personnel Council (SAFPC) on 30 Jun 97 for a grade determination.  The
SAFPC   grade   determination   established   that   he   had   served
satisfactorily in the higher grade  of  SSgt,  which  allowed  him  to
receive disability severance pay in the higher pay grade.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
18 October 2002 for review and comment within 30  days.   To  date,  a
response has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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  error  or  injustice.   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 offices of primary responsibility and adopt their  rationale  as
the basis for our conclusion that  the  applicant  has  not  been  the
victim of an  error  or  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 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 Docket  Number  02-01527
in Executive Session on 17 December 2002, under the provisions of  AFI
36-2603:

      Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
      Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member
      Mr. Charlie E. Williams, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Mar 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant,
                dated 5 Sep 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 18 Oct 02.




                                   PEGGY E. GORDON
                                   Panel Chair