RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00653
            INDEX CODE:  108.02
            COUNSEL:  Mr. Roy R. Levin

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her discharge for misconduct be changed to reflect that  she  was  medically
retired.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Based upon all of her medical records, it would appear that she should  have
been medically retired instead of discharged for misconduct.

In support of her request, applicant  provided  extracts  from  her  medical
records, her active duty training orders, documentation associated with  her
Medical Evaluation Board  (MEB) processing,  her  discharge  documents,  and
documentation extracted  from  her  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)
records.  Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  on  3  Mar  75  and   was
progressively promoted to the grade of sergeant.   On  4  Apr  80,  she  was
honorably discharged for hardship reasons.  She served  5  years,  1  month,
and 2 days on active duty.

On 1 Oct 91, applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserves in  the  grade  of
sergeant.  On 11 Jan 00, applicant was notified by  her  commander  that  he
was recommending that she be discharged from the  Air  Force  in  accordance
with AFI 36-3209, paragraph 3.21.2.2., for a  pattern  of  misconduct.   She
was advised of her rights in this matter.  She acknowledged receipt  of  the
notification and requested an administrative discharge board hearing  on  19
Jan 00.  On 7 Feb 00, after consulting counsel, applicant waived  her  right
to a hearing before an administrative discharge board on the condition  that
she receive an honorable discharge.  In a legal  review  of  the  case,  the
Director, Military Law, found the case legally  sufficient  and  recommended
that she be discharged with an honorable discharge,  without  probation  and
rehabilitation.  On 4 May 00, the discharge  authority  concurred  with  the
recommendation and directed that she be  discharged  without  probation  and
rehabilitation.  Applicant was discharged from the Air Force Reserves on  19
May 00.  She completed 12  years,  1  month,  and  2  days  of  satisfactory
Federal service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/DPZ recommends denial.  DPZ states that the  applicant  was  discharged
for cause on 19 May 00.  The action was taken due  to  her  own  misconduct.
Based on her diagnosis of a personality disorder,  consideration  was  given
to  processing  her  under  the  Conditions  That  Interfere  with  Military
Service, provision of AFI 36-3209.  However,  discharge  action  under  that
provision is not appropriate if a member's  record  supports  discharge  for
another reason, such as misconduct.  The  documentation  she  provided  does
not warrant change in discharge status.  For her conduct, the  preponderance
of evidence supported the type of discharge provided.   Since  the  Physical
Evaluation Board (PEB) did not find her unfit for duty, but instead  cleared
her medically to return to military duty, there is no basis  for  a  medical
retirement or discharge.  It should be noted  that  a  member  should  serve
satisfactorily for a  minimum  of  15  years,  with  the  last  6  years  of
qualifying service in the Reserve component to be  eligible  for  a  service
retirement for medical reasons.  At the time of her  discharge,  she  served
12 years, 1 month, and 2 days of  satisfactory  service  toward  retirement.
Thus, she would not have met the minimum 15 years necessary to  be  eligible
for early Reserve retirement for medical reasons.  The DPZ evaluation is  at
Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel states that subsequent  to  her  discharge  from  the  military  the
applicant received s  service-connected  disability  rated  at  50  percent.
Such a  service  connection  should  be  sufficient  to  allow  her  medical
discharge from the Air Force.

Applicant states that she never received any letters  addressing  misconduct
or has been counseled.  The administrative discharge  action  was  initiated
after she  wrote  a  detailed  letter  to  her  Congressman  in  regards  to
harassments perpetrated by her commander and is  obviously  retaliation  for
her letter.  Applicant rebuts the circumstances  surrounding  the  incidents
which led to her discharge and states that she  was  never  advised  by  the
Physical Evaluation Board that she was told to return to duty.

In support of her request, applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,  her
counsel's brief, documentation extracted from her  administrative  discharge
package, documentation extracted from her  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs
(DVA) records, documentation extracted from her  military  medical  records.
Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  We see no evidence of  an  error  in  this
case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation  provided  in  support
of her appeal, we do not  believe  that  she  has  been  the  victim  of  an
injustice.  We are not persuaded that the actions taken by her commander  to
affect her discharge were improper or  that  she  abused  her  discretionary
authority in doing so.  With respect to her request that  her  discharge  be
changed to reflect that she was medically  retired,  we  note  that  for  an
individual to be considered unfit for military  service,  there  must  be  a
medical condition so  severe  that  it  prevents  performance  of  any  work
commensurate with rank and experience.  In this case, her condition did  not
render her unfit for  continued  service.   Because  a  person  can  acquire
physical conditions that, although not unfitting at the time of  separation,
may later progress in severity and alter  the  individual's  lifestyle,  the
DVA compensation system was written to allow awarding  compensation  ratings
for conditions that were not unfitting for military service.   This  is  the
reason why an individual with a medical condition that does not  render  the
individual unfit for service at the time of separation can  soon  thereafter
receive a compensation rating from the DVA for the  service  connected,  but
not militarily unfitting condition.  In addition, we note that at  the  time
of her discharge, she had only completed 12 years, 1 month, and  2  days  of
satisfactory  service  and  would  not  have  met  the  minimum   15   years
satisfactory service required by law to be eligible  for  an  early  Reserve
medical  retirement.    Therefore,   we   agree   with   the   opinion   and
recommendation of the Air Force office 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.  In the  absence  of  evidence  to
the contrary, we find no basis  to  recommend  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

4.  We note that the applicant has indicated that she did not receive  a  DD
Form 214 upon separation and her requests for issuance  of  a  DD  Form  214
have gone unanswered.  The DD Form 214,  is  a  Certificate  of  Release  or
Discharge from Active Duty.  Since the applicant  was  discharged  from  the
Air Force Reserves, and not from an active component, issuance of a DD  Form
is not required.

5.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issues involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2003-
00653 in Executive Session on 29 Oct 03, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Panel Chair
      Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member
      Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Aug 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFRC/DPZ, dated 11 Sep 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Sep 03.




                                   MARILYN THOMAS
                                   Vice Chair