RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01837
                            (CASE 5)
            INDEX CODES:  135.00, 136.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge of 13 May 94 be  remanded  to  the  Air  Force  Reserve,
allowing for his application to retire on a date  consistent  with  31
Oct 94, and, his request for retirement be approved at the last  grade
he held.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Legislation was pending which would have allowed for his retirement in
lieu of discharge.  The Air Force Reserve  did  not  provide  him  the
option to apply for retirement on a date consistent with  31  Oct  94,
which would have allowed him to receive credit for his service.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  an   expanded
statement, a congressional review of Public  Law  103-337,  Title  10,
United States Code (USC), Section 12731, his point credit summary, and
other documents associated with the matter under review.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant’s military personnel records reflect that he entered  active
duty in the grade of second lieutenant (0-1) on 15 May 80.  On  1  Aug
87, he received an honorable discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-
12 (Voluntary Resignation:  Completion of Active  Service  Commitment)
in the grade of captain (0-3).  On 8 Oct 87, he accepted a  commission
in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of captain.  On 29 Dec  90,  the
applicant  entered  active  duty  in  support  of   Operation   Desert
Shield/Storm.   He   was   released   from   active   duty   (Due   to
Demobilization) and transferred to the Air Force Reserve on 1 Jun 91.

A medical entry, dated 29  Jan  92,  indicated  the  applicant  (self-
referred for a psychological evaluation) was evaluated by  the  Mental
Health Clinic with no positive findings.  He was scheduled for further
evaluation on 4 Aug 92.

On 12 Apr 92, the applicant was referred to the Keesler AFB  Neurology
&  Psychiatry  Department  by  his  superior  for  a  neuropsychiatric
evaluation.

A mental health evaluation conducted  by  the  clinical  psychologist,
dated 7 Jun 92, states that the applicant was seen as a  result  of  a
commander-directed mental health evaluation on 29 May 92.  The results
of this evaluation follow:

      AXIS I:   (Mental Disorders)           Occupational Problem
      AXIS II:  (Personality Disorders) Personality Disorder,
                       with compulsive and
                       narcissistic features
      AXIS III: (Physical Disorders)         No Diagnosis

On 18 Jun 92, the squadron commander recommended discharge action as a
result of the mental health evaluation.  On 30 Apr 93, the applicant’s
letter of notification was amended indicating  that  discharge  action
was being initiated against him for misconduct.

On 7 Oct 93, a board of officers convened to consider the  applicant’s
case.  The board found that:

            As to the allegation that the applicant  suffered  from  a
character or behavior disorder which interfered with  his  performance
of duty, the board  found  that,  on  7  Jun  92,  the  applicant  was
diagnosed  by  the  clinical  psychologist,  Keesler  Medical  Center,
Keesler Air Force, as having a  character  and  behavior  disorder  as
contained in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(DSM-III-R), which did interfere with  his duty performance.

            That on or about 27 Apr 93, the diagnosis of the  clinical
psychologist was reviewed  by  the  Chairman,  Department  of  Health,
Keesler Medical Center, Keesler Air Force, who  concurred  fully  with
the clinical psychologist’s diagnosis.

            That the applicant had a character and  behavior  disorder
as contained in  the  Diagnostic  and  Statistical  Manual  of  Mental
Disorders (DSM-III-R), not otherwise specified,  with  compulsive  and
narcissistic features.

            That  the  applicant’s  character  and  behavior  disorder
interfered with his duty performance.

            As to the allegation that the applicant had committed acts
of misconduct that raised doubts regarding his fitness  for  retention
in the Air Force Reserve, the board found that the applicant committed
acts of  misconduct  that  raise  doubts  regarding  his  fitness  for
retention in the Air Force Reserve.

            More specifically, the board found that during the  period
of on or about Jan-Mar 91, while deployed to the Eastern Saudi  Arabia
during Desert Storm, the applicant did, on or about 8 Jan 91, fail  to
obey a direct order given to  him  by  Major  M---  to  continue  with
sandbag construction by disregarding the order and leaving the scene.

            The applicant was discovered asleep while  on  duty  in  a
vehicle.

            The applicant did on several occasions fail to attend  the
daily staff meeting as required in order to help  him  brief  the  new
shift supervisors.

            The applicant did, without  authority,  order  maintenance
performed on an alert  aircraft  without  replacing  the  aircraft  or
notifying the necessary aircraft controllers, thereby jeopardizing the
alert capability during wartime.

            In addition, the board found that  the  applicant,  on  or
about Nov 90, failed to attend an  important  Unit  Training  Assembly
(UTA) without contacting his immediate supervisor or  commander  after
being told to report by a superior officer.

            The applicant did, on or about 25 Jun 90,  without  proper
authority, order the early release of personnel from their UTA.

            The applicant did during Mar 92,  wrongfully  and  without
authority, obtain and use for his own purposes  copies  of  two  other
officers’ performance reports, thereby invading the officers’  privacy
and violating AFRES 35-44 and 36-10.

            As to the allegation  that  the  applicant  had  displayed
substandard  performance  of  duty  by  failing  to  show   acceptable
qualities of leadership required of  an  officer  of  his  grade,  and
failing to achieve acceptable standards of proficiency required of  an
officer of his or her grade, the board found that  the  applicant  had
displayed  substandard  performance  of  duty  by  failing   to   show
acceptable qualities of leadership  required  of  an  officer  of  his
grade.  More specifically, that the applicant:

                 Did on or about 24 Mar 91, display poor judgment  and
officership by  overreacting  to  a  sentry  or  security  policeman’s
failure to salute him while entering an installation in Eastern  Saudi
Arabia during Desert Storm,  thereby  causing  entering  and  existing
traffic to back up when he stopped his vehicle to talk to the sentry.

                 Did on or about 23 Feb 92,  show  poor  judgment  and
officership by causing his supervisor Major G--- M--- to  be  ticketed
by Security Police for parking his vehicle in a parking slot  reserved
for the applicant in his civilian capacity  under  circumstances  when
the parking lot was virtually empty on an alternate “B” UTA weekend.

            The applicant had  displayed  substandard  performance  of
duty  by  failing  to  achieve  acceptable  standards  of  proficiency
required of an officer of his or her grade.  More  specifically,  that
the applicant:

                 Had on one or more occasions withdrawn  or  taken  no
action for days at a time and given questionable  reasons  for  delays
when questioned by higher ranking officers.

                 Did on or about 2  Apr  91,  use  unacceptable  radio
procedures by stating over an open frequency that a certain person was
not qualified to do a task and to replace him.

                 Was not prepared, on or about 22 Sep 91, to brief MCR
66-5, Chapter 18, after being told to do so by Major C--- D--- H--.

            The board found that the applicant had  shown  a  downward
trend in duty performance  resulting  in  an  unacceptable  record  of
effectiveness and had established a record of marginal service over an
extended time as shown by  effectiveness  reports  covering  different
jobs and prepared by  at  least  two  different  supervisors  for  the
periods of 12 Sep 90 through 11 Sep 91, and 12 Sep 91  through  17 Jun
92.

Consistent with its findings, the board recommended that the applicant
be separated with a general discharge.

On 22 Apr 94, the Secretary of the Air Force ordered  the  applicant’s
appointment as a Reserve officer be terminated pursuant to AFR  35-41,
and that he be discharged with a general discharge from the Air Force.

On 13 May 94, the applicant was discharged from  all  appointments  in
the United States Air Force Reserve under the provisions of AFR 35-41,
Volume III (Serious or Recurring Misconduct) with a general discharge.

On 20 Oct 98 and 21  Sep  99,  the  Board  considered  and  denied  an
application pertaining to the applicant, in  which  he  requested  his
general discharge be vacated; his commission as an officer in the  Air
Force Reserve be reinstated; and, he be returned to his position as an
Air Reserve Technician (ART).   A  complete  copy  of  the  Record  of
Proceedings is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/DPZ recommended denial noting that the Public Law and  subsequent
Title 10,  USC,  on  this  issue  was  not  enacted  until  after  the
applicant’s discharge date of 13 May 94.  Along with the fact that his
discharge date fell outside the window of qualifying  eligibility  for
the Public Law entitlement in  question,  the  applicant’s  option  to
apply for retirement on a date consistent with  31  Oct  94,  and  the
expectation to have been afforded the opportunity via information from
military  counsel,  is  not  applicable.   In  AFRC/DPZ’s  view,   the
documentation to support the applicant’s request does  not  warrant  a
change to his discharge status.  For his conduct,  the  applicant  was
appropriately discharged with a corresponding timely effective date of
discharge.

A complete copy of the AFRC/DPZ evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the  advisory  opinion  and  furnished  a  response
indicating that the issue before the Board is  not  whether  something
was alleged to have happened in his case.  Indeed,  these  allegations
are irrelevant now.  Rather, the Board should resolve whether  or  not
his long, honorable, and productive satisfactory service to the United
States should have resulted in  voluntary  retirement  based  upon  21
years, 3 months, and 27 days of satisfactory time already served,  and
the unit affiliation standard was within reach.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

Applicant provided a subsequent response, with attachments,  which  is
at 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  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant's  complete
submission was thoroughly  reviewed  and  his  contentions  were  duly
noted.  However, we do not find  the  applicant’s  assertions  or  his
supporting  documentation  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override  the
rationale provided by the Air Force office of  primary  responsibility
(OPR).   The  evidence  of  record  reveals  that  the  applicant  was
discharged  from  all  appointments  in  the  Air  Force  Reserve  for
misconduct on 13 May 94.  No evidence has been presented  which  shows
to our satisfaction his discharge was  improper  or  contrary  to  the
provisions of the discharge directive under which it was effected.  We
note that the Public Law and subsequent statute allowing  for  members
separated during the period of 5 Oct  94  through  31  Dec  01  to  be
eligible to apply for retirement at age 60 after completing  the  last
six years of satisfactory service  in  a  Reserve  component  was  not
enacted until  over  four  months  after  the  applicant’s  discharge.
Furthermore,  it  appears  the  applicant  was  discharged  prior   to
completing six years of satisfactory service in a  Reserve  component.
In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of sufficient evidence to
the contrary, we agree with the recommendation of the  OPR  and  adopt
their rationale as the basis for our decision that the  applicant  has
failed to sustain his burden of establishing he has suffered either an
error or an injustice.  Accordingly, 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-01837 in Executive Session on 11 Feb 04, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Ms. Ann-Cecile McDermott, Member
      Ms. Leslie E. Abbott, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2003-01837 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 May 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Record of Proceedings, dated 8 Feb 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFRC/DPZ, dated 11 Sep 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Oct 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, applicant, dated 14 Oct 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, applicant, dated 2 Feb 04, w/atchs.





                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair