RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-03078
      INDEX CODE 108.01  108.02  110.02  134.01  126.04
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    The Department of Defense Inspector General (DODIG) be  directed
to investigate his allegations  of  reprisal  because  he  informed  a
superior of his intent to contact the Air Force IG.

2.    The Letter of Reprimand, dated 27 Nov 00, be voided.

3.    His placement on the Control Roster (CR) and  the  establishment
of an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) on 1 Dec 00 be set aside.

4.    The nonjudicial punishment imposed by Article 15,  Uniform  Code
of Military Justice (UCMJ), on 19 Dec 00, be set aside.

5.    His DD Form 214 be corrected to reflect E-4, his  highest  grade
held, rather than his demoted grade of E-3, and that he was discharged
under other than Chapter  61,  Title  10,  USC,  as  directed  by  the
Secretary of the Air Force Personnel  Council  (SAFPC).   [Note:  This
was, in fact, directed by SAFPC but apparently was never accomplished.
However, in Exhibit J, the applicant also asks that he be promoted and
his highest grade held be reflected as E-5.]

6.    He be rated and medically  retired  for  Post  Traumatic  Stress
Disorder (PTSD) and Behcet’s disease [See Exhibit E.]

7.    He be remunerated for a “. . . 400-level management course  with
Park University during [his] last months in the Air Force . . .  under
the Acquisition Professional Development Program . . .” and be awarded
a decoration.

[8.   Note:  Although  not  specifically  included  in  the  requested
corrections, the referral Enlisted Performance Reports for the periods
closing 28 Feb 99, 8 Jan 00, 7 Nov 00,  and  7  Jun  01,  are  related
actions.]

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He suffered tremendous  psychological  trauma,  command  mistreatment,
unjust punishments and reprisal.  Malicious  members  of  his  command
sought out creative ways to get rid of him, such as being  ordered  to
write a “letter of apology” for crimes he did not commit, charged with
extortion for informing a superior of his intent to  contact  the  IG,
and charged with being absent without leave (AWOL) when he never  was.
The DODIG ignored his efforts to contact them.  His incorrect DD  Form
214 may preclude him from obtaining Federal employment and, due to his
disability, he has not been able to obtain  gainful  employment  since
his 2001 discharge.  He could use the hundreds of dollars  taken  away
from him in punishment and needs to believe there is justice  in  this
world in order to heal.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The  following  information  was  extracted  from  official  documents
supplied by the applicant (Exhibits A, E, H, J and K), his medical and
military personnel records, the SAFPC dual-action file, and  the  18th
Wing IG Complaint Analysis (all at Exhibit B), which is not releasable
to the applicant.

The applicant was admitted to a psychiatric hospital in 1991  when  he
was around 12 years old because of relationship problems he was having
with  his  family.   However,  he  was  not  medicated.    Psychiatric
evaluations revealed the applicant may have experienced a  tumultuous,
possibly abusive, childhood as well as frequent  family  fights  as  a
young child involving his father, stepmother, and  stepsiblings.   His
biological mother was a diagnosed schizophrenic and institutionalized,
which raised concerns given he was exhibiting behaviors  appearing  to
mimic schizophrenic behavior.   He  was  moody,  disobedient,  hostile
towards his  younger  stepsiblings,  and  acting  bizarrely.   He  was
frequently the instigator of difficulty and acknowledged he pushed his
stepmother’s “buttons.”  He was relatively slow to adapt to  the  unit
routine, showing some inability to comprehend and behave by rules well
known to all.  Evaluation showed,  in  part,  that  he  was  extremely
bright but decidedly deficient in his  capacity  to  interpret  social
cues  and  to  respond  appropriately  with  gestures,  emotions   and
behaviors of his own.  Later, when the applicant was in  high  school,
he apparently was made a ward  of  the  state  after  his  father,  an
alcoholic, threatened him.

Prior to enlisting, a military psychiatric evaluation  on  11  Mar  97
noted the applicant’s hospitalization at age 12, found no evidence  of
depression, affective disorder, or thought  disorder  and  reported  a
normal neuropsychic impression.

As a result, the applicant received  a  waiver  and  enlisted  in  the
Regular Air Force on 18 Jun 97.  He  was  promoted  to  the  grade  of
senior airman (SRA) on 18 Jun 00.  During the period in question,  the
applicant was assigned as a contract  apprentice/specialist  first  to
the 18th Contracting Squadron (18CS) at Kadena AFB, Japan, and then to
the 47th Contracting Squadron (47CS) at Laughlin AFB, TX.

The applicant apparently experienced repeated  injuries  from  bicycle
wrecks in a short period of time.  After a bicycle accident in Mar 98,
which required some facial/dental  reconstructive  surgery,  he  began
having night sweats, flashbacks, and nightmares of childhood abuse.

An 18 Aug 98 medical entry  reported  the  applicant’s  concern  about
having HIV from contact  with  prostitutes  in  Okinawa.   Tests  were
negative.

A 9 Nov 98 Mental Health  record  by  the  Psychological  Services  at
Kadena AB, Japan, reported the applicant complained of  night  sweats,
diarrhea,  loss  of  appetite  and  weight,  poor  concentration   and
difficulties  sleeping.   Diagnosis  was  deferred  but  a  commander-
directed evaluation would be recommended.

On  10  Dec  98,  he  underwent  a  commander-directed  mental  health
evaluation for inappropriate and strange behavior leading to  problems
at work such as an inability to take orders.  The applicant complained
of difficulty sleeping, night  sweats,  carpel  tunnel  syndrome,  and
fatigue.  Diagnosis was deferred.

Further diagnostic evaluation on  5  Jan  99  reported  the  applicant
claimed to be  a  concert  pianist  and  knew  12  foreign  languages;
however, when pinned with specifics, he appeared  to  have  overstated
his abilities.  An 8 Jan 99 evaluation reported the applicant would be
returned to duty with close supervision.  He was told that  lying  and
discussing inappropriate topics at work would  not  be  tolerated  and
could result in his dismissal from the Air Force.  He  would  continue
to be monitored and the mental  health  clinic  (MHC)  would  exchange
information with the applicant’s command.

On 4 Mar 99, the Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the  period  18
Jun 97 through 28 Feb 99 was referred to the applicant.  He was marked
unacceptable in his on/off duty conduct and given an overall rating of
3 (consider for promotion).  The additional rater concurred  with  the
rater and indicated he did not receive rebuttal  comments.   Evaluator
comments indicated the applicant was counseled for integrity problems,
falsely relaying information to superiors, and disrespect.

The applicant alleged he was sexually assaulted on 20 Sep  99  at  the
off-base residence of an AAFES contract employee on Okinawa.  [Note: A
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) evaluation on  11 Apr  03,  after
the applicant’s discharge in 2001, reported he took piano  lessons  at
an extension university in Okinawa.  The “piano professor”  befriended
the applicant and would invite him  over  to  his  [the  instructor’s]
house for dinner.  On one such occasion, this  individual  placed  his
hand on the applicant’s “crotch.”  The applicant stated he got up  and
left, that both were fully clothed, and there was no further  activity
or contact between them after the incident.]  The applicant  indicated
he reported the crime to the 18th Security  Forces  Squadron,  the  62
Field Investigative Squadron,  the  Okinawa  City  and  Kadena  Police
Departments, the 18th  Wing  Judge  Advocate  General,  and  the  18th
Contracting Squadron commander.  However, the Air Force apparently did
not have jurisdiction in the matter and  court  action  could  not  be
taken against the individual until the Japanese Police completed their
investigation.

On 24 Sep 99, the MHC reported the applicant’s depression and  anxiety
relative to “a sex harassment incident.”  Follow-up  visits  indicated
he continued to experience interpersonal problems,  night  sweats  and
nightmares.  A 3 Nov 99 MHC intake form  of  the  applicant’s  walk-in
visit had a provisional assessment of adjustment disorder  with  mixed
emotions.  A 6 Nov 99 psychotherapy evaluation  noted  discussions  of
family, relationships, and recent assault, with recommended  follow-up
sessions.  A 17 Dec 99 therapy  session  “discussed  upsetting  event,
identified the distortions, and examined 3 techniques to  untwist  the
distortions.”

On 13 Jan 00, the applicant requested a six-month  out-of-cycle  DEROS
extension  to  his  current  location  until  the  investigation   was
completed and the issue was brought to trial and  resolved.   However,
the commander recommended disapproval.

Also on 13 Jan 00, the EPR for the period 1 Mar 99  through  8 Jan  00
was referred to the applicant.  He  was  marked  unacceptable  in  his
on/off duty conduct  and  given  an  overall  rating  of  3.  Comments
indicated the applicant needed to pay closer attention to detail, that
he “often forgets the truth until questioned several  times,”  and  he
was a “supervisor’s challenge.”  The additional rater  concurred  with
the rater and indicated he did not receive rebuttal comments.

On 21 Mar 00, the applicant was transferred to the  47CS  at  Laughlin
AFB, TX.

On 26  April  00,  the  applicant  received  a  Record  of  Individual
Counseling (RIC) for unprofessional behavior.   He  had  become  upset
when, after studying the night before for a scheduled test, no one was
available to administer the test on 25 Apr 00.   The  supervisor  also
noted that, in less than five weeks, the applicant had  made  numerous
complaints  and   demonstrated   irresponsibility,   immaturity,   and
unprofessionalism.  Further, the applicant had been counseled  on  his
attitude, lack of maturity and good judgment, and  told  to  learn  to
“pick his  fights.”   The  applicant  “strongly”  disagreed  with  the
supervisor’s assessment.

On 19 Jul 00, he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for sending  an
unofficial political opinion email to all 47CS personnel on  4 Jul  00
and stating on 7 Jul 00 that he was “wasting our time” by attending  a
mandatory briefing because he had attended previous training.

On 29 Aug 00, the applicant applied to marry a Japanese national.

An AF Form 1137 indicates that on 12 Sep 00 the  applicant  failed  to
follow  a  direct  order,  failed  to  request  advance  leave  before
submitting a leave form, conveyed a threat to his  flight  chief,  and
failed to return to duty from leave at the appointed  date  and  time.
The form advised an LOR was issued on 8 Nov 00 and the  applicant  was
placed on the CR.   The  UCMJ  articles  cited  as  violated  were  86
(failure to go) and 127 (extortion).

A Wilford Hall Medical Center (WHMC) medical entry, dated  14 Sep  00,
reported a follow-up visit for the applicant’s night sweats and  other
symptoms.  The entry  noted  no  apparent  infectious  etiology  after
extensive work-up and “must consider Behcet’s disease.”

On 20 Sep 00, the applicant received another RIC  for  taking  a  long
lunch  break  without  notification  during  which  he  took  a   nap,
apparently because he was drowsy from medications.

On 27 Nov 00, he received an LOR for failing  to  write  a  letter  of
apology on 15 Sep 00 with specific  items  included  regarding  health
information he relayed; failing to request advance leave on 4  Oct  00
before submitting a leave form to his supervisor;  conveying  what  he
called a “friendly threat” to his flight chief; and failing to show up
for duty at the appointed time and date when he returned  from  leave.
The commander indicated the applicant had every right to go to the  IG
at any time, as they had discussed.  The commander also  advised  that
she was withdrawing the previous LOR issued on 8 Nov 00,  establishing
a UIF, and placing him on the CR.   The  cited  UCMJ  violations  were
Articles 86 (failure to go) and 92 (failure to obey  an  order).   The
applicant provided a rebuttal  on  1  Dec  00,  asserting  the  health
information he relayed was correct as he understood it  and  that  the
commander knew he would be late returning from leave due to an airline
delay. AF Form 1058, UIF Action, dated 1 Dec  00  cites  violation  of
UCMJ Articles 86 and 127.   [Note: AFLSA/JAJM  acknowledges  in  their
advisory that the UIF incorrectly listed Article  127  (extortion)  as
one of the articles the applicant violated  and  contends  this  is  a
typographical error.]

On 1 Dec 00, the applicant  was  placed  on  the  CR  and  a  UIF  was
established for violation of UCMJ Articles 86 (failure to go) and  127
(extortion).

On 5 Dec 00, applicant was  notified  of  his  commander's  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for failing to  obey  a  lawful
order to return or destroy letters of recommendation on  or  around  1
Sep 00 and wrongfully submitting the letters of recommendation in  his
enlisted  retraining  package.   After  consulting  with  counsel  and
waiving his right to a trial by court-martial, the applicant requested
a personal appearance and submitted a written presentation.  On 19 Dec
00, his commander found him guilty, reduced him  from  SRA  to  airman
first class (A1C), imposed 25 days of extra duty, and reprimanded him.
 The applicant appealed, and the commander provided  a  point-by-point
rebuttal on 21 Dec 00.  The appellate authority denied the applicant’s
appeal on 3 Jan 01 and the Article 15 was filed in his UIF.

In a 12 Jan 01 Statement of Medical Condition, the Life Skills  Flight
commander diagnosed the applicant  as  having  clinical  syndromes  of
adjustment  disorder  with  mixed  anxiety  and  depressed  mood,  and
personality disorders/traits/features of immaturity and narcissism.  A
physical disorder of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) was also made.   The
Flight  commander  recommended  the   applicant   for   administrative
discharge  as  he  had  not  responded  to  treatment  for  adjustment
problems.

On 17 Jan 01, the EPR for the period 9 Jan 00 through  7  Nov  00  was
referred  to  the  applicant.   He  was  marked  inefficient  in  duty
performance and unacceptable in his on/off duty conduct.  The  overall
rating was 1  (not  recommended  for  promotion).   Comments  included
references to unprofessional behavior, failure to adjust, and  a  lack
of  initiative  and  attention  to  detail.   The   additional   rater
considered the applicant’s rebuttal but agreed with the rater.

On 18 Jan 01, the commander notified the applicant of  her  intent  to
recommend discharge with a general characterization.  The letter cited
the Article 15, the LOR, the two RICs, LOC, UIF and CR actions.  On 23
Jan 01, the applicant and his  area  defense  counsel  (ADC)  provided
rebuttals.  The ADC asserted the discharge should be  processed  as  a
dual-action.  He noted  the  applicant  was  legally  advised  not  to
include any incriminating statements in the “letter of apology,”  that
the threat referenced in the LOR surrounded  the  possibility  of  his
contacting the IG, and the Article 127 violation on the UIF  reflected
the offense of extortion, which was not documented  in  the  discharge
package. Further, the package does not sustain a general discharge.

On 29 Jan 01, the commander recommended general  discharge  for  minor
disciplinary infractions without probation and  rehabilitation  (P&R).
The commander  described  the  efforts  made  by  herself,  the  first
sergeant and the supervisor to rehabilitate the applicant, as well  as
previous opportunities offered to him to be discharged under honorable
conditions.

In a 30 Jan 01 Report of Medical Assessment, the  applicant  indicated
that his CTS, PTSD, depression, anxiety, and other symptoms  had  been
exacerbated by his military service.  He also indicated  he  had  been
referred  to  WHMC  “several  times  for   possible   Behcet’s-related
symptoms.”

On  7  Feb  01,  a  legal  review  found  the  case   sufficient   for
administrative discharge action.  The  review  noted  the  12  Jan  01
letter from the Life Skills  commander  recommending  discharge  under
mental disorders, but  believed  discharge  for  misconduct  was  more
appropriate.  The review determined the applicant’s overall record was
not meritorious and a general discharge without P&R was recommended.

A 20 Feb 01 Letter of Admonishment (LOA) admonished the applicant  for
failing to pack up his personal effects at his old desk  by  close  of
business on 16 Feb 01, as ordered on 14 Feb 01.

On 22 Feb 01, the 47FTW commander  directed  the  applicant’s  general
discharge for a pattern of misconduct without P&R.

A Narrative Summary for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB), dated 27 Feb
01, reported the applicant’s psychiatric evaluation at WHMC  on  7 Feb
01 related to problems  with  nightmares,  flashbacks  and  heightened
anxiety related to childhood sexual abuse.  The applicant had received
a medical work-up in 1998 for night sweats, but had not  revealed  his
abuse, nightmares or flashbacks. He  eventually  told  a  chaplain  at
Laughlin of his abuse, nightmares and flashbacks,  which  resulted  in
his referral to WHMC.  The psychiatrist determined that a  portion  of
the applicant’s PTSD symptoms were the result of trauma prior to entry
into the Air Force, that the sexual assault in  1999  exacerbated  his
symptoms but was not solely responsible for his current  presentation,
and that he was significantly impaired by his symptoms even  prior  to
the assault.  Medical separation,  with  continued  psychotherapy  and
medication, was recommended.

On 6 Mar 01, the MEB recommended  referral  to  an  Informal  Physical
Evaluation Board (IPEB) for PTSD, marked, considerable, and  bilateral
CTS.

The commander provided  an  evaluation  on  9  Mar  01,  advising  the
applicant had a medical profile for CTS, which  limited  some  of  his
duties and his ability to deploy.  The commander asserted the
applicant had not performed the duties of his office, grade,  rank  or
rating and that he was able to perform some duties but did not perform
them.

An IPEB convened on 16 Mar 01 and found the PTSD was unfitting but not
compensable and ratable because it existed  prior  to  service  (EPTS)
based on the applicant’s history of similar mental findings since 1991
and did not sustain permanent  service  aggravation  (PSA).  Discharge
under other than Chapter 61 was recommended.  The  applicant  did  not
agree with the findings and, on 23 Mar 01, demanded a Formal  Physical
Evaluation Board (FPEB).

On 23 Mar 01, the applicant submitted a reprisal complaint to the 47th
Flying Training Wing (47FTW) IG, alleging in part that the 18CS Acting
First Sergeant and Superintendent reprised against him for  submitting
congressional complaints  by  “misplacing”  his  assignment  personnel
notice, which would have allowed him either to request an extension of
his present assignment or decline a projected assignment.

The FPEB, convened on 19 Apr 01, concurred with the IPEB findings  and
recommendations.  The applicant did not  testify  but  his  allegation
that a sexual assault in 1999 permanently aggravated his condition was
noted.  However, the FPEB opined  that  his  EPTS  condition  was  not
permanently  aggravated  by  his  military  service.   The   applicant
disagreed with the FPEB’s recommendation.

On 3 May 01, the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) initiated  a  formal
rebuttal regarding the FPEB on behalf of the applicant to the SAFPC.

On 21 May 01, the administrative discharge action was deferred pending
the outcome of required dual-action processing.

On 7 Jun 01, the EPR for the period 8 Nov 00  through  7  Jun  01  was
referred to the applicant.  He was marked unsatisfactory in all  seven
performance factors.  The rater cited an LOA, three LOCs, the LOR  and
the Article 15. The overall rating was 1.  The additional rater agreed
with the rater and indicated that rebuttal comments were requested but
not received within the required period.

On 12 Jun 01, SAFPC voted to  “discontinue  administrative  separation
based upon the relatively minor nature of the disciplinary infractions
and the clear link between these infractions  and  the  unsuiting  and
unfitting conditions.”  On 13 Jun 01, SAFPC concurred  with  the  IPEB
and FPEB findings and recommendations that the applicant be discharged
under other than Chapter 61, that  his  mental  health  condition  was
permanent, relatively stable and EPTS without PSA.  They concluded his
personality disorder was the principle aggravating factor in both  his
disciplinary and mental health problems and, since it was the  primary
reason  for  separation,  chose  that  venue  over  an  administrative
punitive discharge.  SAFPC also directed the applicant’s highest grade
held (SRA/E-4) be restored at the time of discharge.

On 15 Jun 01, the applicant was honorably discharged  for  disability,
EPTS, after 4 years and 15 days of active service. The Remarks section
of the DD Form 214 indicates “The Board also elected  to  restore  the
Highest Grade Held for the member’s rank at the  time  of  discharge;”
however,  despite  this  and  the  SAFPC  ruling,  the  applicant  was
discharged in the grade of A1C/E-3, rather than SRA/E-4.

On 19  Jun  01,  the  18WG  completed  a  Complaint  Analysis  of  the
applicant’s 23 Mar 01 complaint. Due to the lapse of  time,  the  18WG
found it extremely difficult to determine what exactly transpired  and
who did what and when. However, based on the available facts, the 18WG
found no reprisal.  On 20 Jun 01, the 18WG  IG  advised  HQ  PACAF/IGQ
that a reprisal investigation was not  warranted  on  the  applicant’s
case.

A 28 May 02 Department of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)  Compensation  and
Pension Exam reported, in part, the applicant showed no  sign  of  any
major general medical conditions, obsessed about the piano teacher who
made sexual advances to him,  could  have  an  underlying  personality
disorder, displayed symptoms of PTSD from events prior to  and  during
military service, was  anxious  and  socially  isolated.   The  report
concluded that, prior to military service, the  applicant  did  suffer
from  a  conduct  disorder  and  displayed   schizotypal   personality
features, but did not suffer from PTSD. The  original  trauma  perhaps
created a vulnerability, but the trauma in  the  service  created  the
PTDS.  The diagnosis was PTSD, and  schizotypal  personality  disorder
with probable additional borderline features.

According to the applicant’s emails to the DODIG, on 12 and 18 Jan  03
he inquired about the status of his complaint to the 47FTW IG.

A  22  Sep  03  DVA  evaluation  determined,  as  per  the   available
documentation  and  applying  the  internationally  agreed  diagnostic
criteria, there was not enough evidence to say  or  even  suspect  the
applicant had Behcet’s disease.  Further, review of  the  entire  case
file showed there was  no  physician  who  actually  saw  the  genital
lesions.  The applicant was found to be physically healthy.

A DVA rheumatology consultation on 30 Dec 03, showed  the  preliminary
diagnosis was based on the applicant’s report of a significant history
of recurrent oral  and  genital  ulceration  dating  back  to  initial
concerns  he  had  about  being  infected  with  HIV  due  to   sexual
promiscuity.  He also reported a brief episode of vision loss with eye
irritation and weight loss in  1998.   He  also  indicated  his  sores
usually healed by the time he saw a physician.  At  the  time  of  the
evaluation, the physical examination was normal  without  evidence  of
physical signs of Behcet’s disease.  Based on the history of recurrent
oral and genital ulceration and the applicant’s claim of rectal ulcers
with bleeding, a colonoscopy and biopsy were recommended to  rule  out
other ulcers in the intestinal tract and  inflammatory  bowel  disease
(IBD).  The applicant, however, was reluctant to pursue  this  at  the
DVA and preferred to do this privately.

On 27 Jan 04, HQ PACAF/IGQ, in response to the applicant’s Freedom  of
Information Act (FOIA) request attached IG records  deemed  responsive
to his request [see Exhibit H].  The excerpts appear to  be  from  the
18th Security Forces  Squadron,  dated  4 Jun  01,  and  indicate  the
applicant apparently was the subject of an investigation to see if  he
had put up fliers regarding the alleged sexual assault of  a  military
member by a third country contract  employee.   Kadena  did  not  have
jurisdiction because the assault occurred at the  employee’s  off-base
residence.   As  a  result,  the  Japanese  police  investigated   the
incident.  However, the Japanese police “. .  .  could  not  find  any
evidence to indicate whether the assault actually occurred.”

A DVA medical record progress  note  dated  21  May  04  reported  the
applicant stopped taking medication and developed ulcers on his  lower
lip, back of throat and penis.  An exam in Sep 03 denied Behcet’s  but
since that time he had a diagnosis of probable Behcet’s syndrome.  The
applicant demanded pictures be taken.

The applicant had a combined compensable DVA rating of 80%  for  PTSD,
CTS in the right and left wrists,  tinnitus,  disfigurement  of  head,
neck or face, and  migraine  headaches,  all  service-connected.   The
applicant supplied a 16 Jul 04 DVA rating awarding him 100% disability
rating for  service-connected  PTSD,  which  the  DVA  determined  had
worsened after the applicant’s discharge.  He also provided a 3 Aug 04
DVA Rheumatology report which notes, in part, that, “He fulfills  1990
international criteria for Behcet’s.” (See Exhibit K).

Additional medical details are provided  in  the  applicant’s  medical
records at Exhibits A  and  B,  in  the  AFBCMR  Medical  Consultant’s
evaluation at Exhibit F, and the DVA  examinations  submitted  by  the
applicant at Exhibits J and K.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM notes that accepting Article 15  proceedings  is  simply  a
choice of forum, not an admission of guilt.  Set aside action  is  not
normally considered a rehabilitation tool and  commanders  should  not
routinely set aside punishment or use it as a reward for a member  who
merely avoids further misconduct.  The commander in this case  clearly
considered  all  of  the  information  the  applicant  provided.   The
applicant’s rebuttal did not address his responsibility in the  matter
and discussed many extraneous matters.  The  commander  addressed,  in
writing, each of the applicant’s rebuttal  issues  and  the  appellate
authority denied the applicant’s appeal.  AFLSA/JAJM acknowledges  the
UIF incorrectly listed Article 127 (extortion) as one of the  articles
the applicant violated, and this appears to be a typographical  error.
The applicant provides no new  justification  to  eliminate  the  LOR,
which does not allude to extortion or  reprisal  for  the  applicant’s
comment to go to the IG.   Instead,  it  specifically  reiterates  his
rights to go  to  the  IG  if  desired.   This  case  illustrates  the
difficulties  in   addressing   the   factual   issues   involved   in
administrative disciplinary actions.  Commanders  on  the  scene  have
first-hand access to facts and a unique perspective for the  needs  of
their units.  Unless shown to be either arbitrary  or  capricious,  or
clearly erroneous or unjust, a commander’s findings should not be  set
aside.   The  basis  of  the  applicant’s  request   for   relief   is
insufficient to warrant setting aside the Article 15 or  the  LOR  and
does not demonstrate an equitable basis for relief.  Therefore, denial
is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant notes the DD Form 214 does not reflect SAFPC’s direction
that he be discharged in the rank of E-4.  He was  given  an  unlawful
order  to  write  a  confession,  which  was  a   violation   of   his
constitutional  rights.   The  capricious  AWOL  charge  is  a   clear
injustice in that he did take leave properly and this  charge  was  in
reprisal for his protected disclosure.  There is no  proof  supporting
the  charge  he  was  ordered  to   return/destroy   33   letters   of
recommendation, one of which was from the commander.  If he  had  been
given such an order, he would have been stupid to give the commander’s
letter, with personal  contact  information,  to  an  Air  Force  Band
conductor.  Further, he was not even located there during part of  the
alleged period  of  offense.   An  order  to  destroy  33  letters  of
recommendation, many  penned  by  friends  and  family,  would  be  an
unlawful and unreasonable seizure, which  he  would  have  immediately
protested.   He  was   maliciously   charged   with   extortion,   not
“erroneously” as the advisory alleges.  His Air Force psychologist  of
three years pointed out that at least 75% of the disciplinary  actions
were related to the PTSD  resulting  in  his  medical  discharge.   He
provides a medical entry from the Sep  2000  timeframe  that  Behcet’s
disease must be considered as the  cause  of  the  disturbing  medical
problems that began while he was stationed in  Japan,  a  nation  that
leads the world in Behcet’s disease.  This disorder causes psychiatric
problems, affects the central nervous system, the intestinal tract and
the heart--all of  which  were  clearly  documented  in  his  military
medical records.  He has recent documentation of  painful  arrhythmia,
which should have been addressed by the medical boards.  However,  his
command exerted pressure on the medical  boards.   If  SAFPC  had  not
denied the Air Force’s attempted discharge for  misconduct,  he  would
have  been  denied  invaluable  medical  benefits  for  this  horrible
disease.  He asks for a complete overturn  of  all  punishments  as  a
humanitarian act.  He apologizes if he caused anyone to  dislike  him,
but he pestered so many doctors because he was  afraid  something  was
terribly wrong with his body.  He should have been rated  and  retired
for Behcet’s disease, PTSD and CTS.

A complete copy of  applicant’s  response,  with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant notes the issue of whether the applicant
had Behcet’s disease was addressed during a Sep  03  DVA  examination,
which determined there was not enough evidence  to  even  suspect  the
applicant has Behcet’s disease.  The Consultant provides  details  and
analysis of the applicant’s military and DVA medical records and finds
no evidence to support a  diagnosis  of  Behcet’s  disease  either  in
service or following discharge.  The neuropsychiatric complications of
Behcet’s disease do not affect all patients with the condition and are
the result of active inflammatory disease affecting the  substance  of
the tissue and the blood vessels in the brain.  Action and disposition
in this case were proper and equitable reflecting compliance with  Air
Force directives.  Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the Consultant’ evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_____________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL EVALUATION:

In a letter dated 28 May 04, the applicant takes  great  exception  to
the Medical Consultant’s  evaluation  and,  in  an  8-page  statement,
outlines why he believes his PTSD is not EPTS but  instead  caused  by
his military service.  He contends he should also be medically retired
for  service-connected/aggravated  Behcet’s  disease.    He   provides
photographs of various parts of his body as well as other attachments,
and requests, among other things, that the AFBCMR obtain a  supporting
statement in his behalf and a second medical opinion.  In his  28  May
04 submission, the applicant also advised he  was  preparing  a  “new”
claim requesting his PTSD be designated as  service-connected,  rather
than EPTS, and he be given a medical retirement.

However, as these issues have been raised in and are directly  related
to his original application/rebuttal currently being processed,  in  a
letter dated 15 Jun 04, the AFBCMR Staff  requested  that  he  forward
this “new” case directly to the AFBCMR for inclusion with his  current
case.  Otherwise, he could request his case be  temporarily  withdrawn
until he was ready to proceed with his “new” claim.  The AFBCMR letter
also advised him that the Board is not an investigative body and  does
not obtain supporting statements in behalf of  applicants.   As  such,
his request for the AFBCMR to forward his letter to Colonel C. in  his
behalf could not  be  honored  and  he  should  directly  contact  the
appropriate individuals for any statements relative to his case.

A complete copy of the applicant’s rebuttal, with attachments, and the
AFBCMR letter are at Exhibits H and I, respectively.

Apparently the applicant had already forwarded a DD Form 149, dated 15
Jun 04, to SAF/MRBR, the AFBCMR’s intake office at Randolph AFB.  That
submission, with attachments, was subsequently forwarded  the  AFBCFMR
for inclusion in this appeal.

The applicant provides a DD Form 149 with a 10-page statement  and  20
attachments, some of which are already part of  his  military  records
and/or his previous submissions.  He includes a 27 May 04 letter  from
a psychologist who has  seen  the  applicant  since  Dec  01  and  who
indicates that, while he cannot comment whether the applicant suffered
from PTSD symptoms  before  the  military,  he  can  attest  that  the
presence of PTSD symptoms were clearly related to events that occurred
during military service.  The applicant also asks for promotion to  E-
5, that this be reflected as his highest grade held, and  remuneration
for contracting courses he took in 2001.

The applicant’s 28 May 04 response and his latest DD  Form  149,  with
attachments, are provided at Exhibit J.

In a letter dated 23 Jul 04, the applicant forwarded a 16 Jul  04  DVA
rating of 100% for service-connected PTSD.  In a  letter  dated  7 Aug
04, he also provided a 3 Aug 04 DVA Rheumatology  report  noting,  “He
fulfills 1990 international criteria for Behcet’s.”   These  documents
are provided at Exhibit K.

_________________________________________________________________

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 note SAFPC concurred with  the
IPEB and FPEB findings and recommendations that the applicant’s mental
health condition was permanent, relatively stable, EPTS  without  PSA,
and he should be  discharged  under  other  than  Chapter  61.   SAFPC
concluded the record strongly suggested  the  applicant’s  personality
disorder was the principle aggravating factor in both his disciplinary
and mental health problems and, since it was the  primary  reason  for
separation,  chose  that  venue  over   an   administrative   punitive
discharge.  SAFPC also directed the  applicant’s  highest  grade  held
(SRA/E-4) be restored at the time of discharge; however, the  DD  Form
214 erroneously reflected the applicant’s highest  grade  as  A1C/E-3.
After thoroughly reviewing the extensive documentation  pertaining  to
this  case  and  carefully  considering   the   applicant’s   numerous
contentions, we ultimately  find  this  is  the  only  aspect  of  the
applicant’s  records  that  warrants  administrative  correction.   In
reaching this conclusion, we considered the following issues.

4.    Although the Air Force rates disabilities in accordance with the
VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities, the Air Force  and  the  DVA  are
separate  federal  agencies  and  operate  under  different  laws  and
policies.  Title 10, USC, Chapter 61,  which  governs  the  Air  Force
system, first requires a determination of unfitness, and then that the
degree of unfitness be based upon the member’s condition at  the  time
of permanent disposition---not upon possible future events.   Further,
while a military member’s various medical problems may be  considered,
only those that render him unfit for military service will  be  rated.
Title  38,  USC,  which  governs  the  DVA  system,  allows   awarding
compensation  for  acquired  and  altered  conditions  that  affect  a
person’s life style and future employability. This is why  a  military
member can receive a disability rating  from  the  DVA  without  being
rated by the Air Force, or receive a higher rating from the  DVA  than
the one awarded by the Air Force.  In this regard, we, like SAFPC, are
convinced the applicant’s personality  disorder  was  the  fundamental
cause of most of his difficulties. This disorder is not a  compensable
or ratable disorder under Chapter 61.  The applicant has a  documented
history of  pre-service  psychological  problems,  and  he  manifested
emotional and behavioral difficulties  before  the  Sep  99  incident.
While we may not agree with the DVA’s finding of PSA PTSD, under their
statutory authority, it is their prerogative to make  such  a  finding
under Title 38.  In our view, the documentation seems to indicate  the
applicant’s underlying personality disorder was contributory  to  much
of his overreaction and inappropriate behavior.   The  3  Aug  04  DVA
report diagnosing Behcet’s was noted.  However, at  the  time  of  the
applicant’s separation, those symptoms he manifested  on  active  duty
were not unfitting and the manifestations now  diagnosed  as  Behcet’s
occurring after discharge are responsive to medication.   A  diagnosis
of Behcet’s with these manifestations  and  medication  would  not  be
unfitting, ratable or  compensable  under  the  Air  Force  disability
system.  The applicant has not demonstrated to our satisfaction  that,
at the time of his separation, his PTSD symptoms did not EPTS or  were
PSA, or that he had any disability
that would warrant medical retirement or severance pay under Title 10,
Chapter 61.  We believe the DVA is  the  appropriate  avenue  for  the
applicant’s treatment and compensation.

5.    We are also unpersuaded by the applicant’s arguments that he has
been victimized or suffered reprisal for contacting  the  IG  and  his
Senator.  His commander advised him of his right to contact the IG and
the 18WG IG found no reprisal investigation was  warranted.   Although
it is unfortunate the applicant suffered from a variety  of  maladies,
we note at no time does he  assume  any  responsibility  for  his  own
behavior, preferring instead to hold others culpable.  We  agree  with
the legal  reviews  of  this  case,  including  the  advisory  opinion
provided by AFLSA/JAJM, that the disciplinary  actions  taken  against
the applicant are supported by the evidence  of  record  and  are  not
overcome by the applicant’s articulate, but unconvincing,  narrations.
As the applicant has not established the  existence  of  an  error  or
injustice, we find no compelling basis to void  the  LOR,  the  CR/UIF
action, or the Article 15.  Given this conclusion, we see  no  grounds
for voiding the referral EPRS, which we believe  were  appropriate  to
review in the totality of this petition even though the applicant  did
not specifically  request  their  removal.   The  applicant  asks  for
remuneration for certain courses, but he submitted no evidence of what
courses, if any, he completed  at  that  time  or  whether  they  were
officially approved under  the  Acquisition  Professional  Development
Program as explained by the commander in paragraph 2.k. of her  21 Dec
00 point-by-point Article 15 appeal rebuttal. Given  the  disciplinary
actions taken against him, which we have  concluded  were  within  the
commander’s discretionary authority, the applicant does not  make  his
case that he would have been promoted to a higher grade or  awarded  a
decoration.  Therefore,  these  portions  of  the  applicant’s  appeal
should also be denied.

6.    In the final analysis,  the  applicant  has  not  shown  he  was
improperly rated  and  discharged.   In  Jun  01,  SAFPC  discontinued
administrative  action  and  directed  the  applicant   be   honorably
discharged for PTSD, EPTS and without PSA, and that his highest  grade
held, SRA, be restored at the time of discharge.   The  applicant  was
erroneously discharged as an A1C and the AFBCMR  Staff  will  have  HQ
AFPC administratively correct this error.  The Air Force will  provide
the applicant either a  DD  Form  215  correcting  the  grade  on  the
original DD Form 214, or a new DD Form 214 with the correct  grade  of
SRA.

_________________________________________________________________

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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 4 and 25 August 2004, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Michael J. Novel, Member
                 Mr. Clarence D. Long III, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-03078 was considered:

   Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Aug 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C. Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 1 Dec 03.
   Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Dec 03.
   Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Jan 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 26 Apr 04.
   Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Apr 04.
   Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant, dated 28 May 04, w/atchs &
                          3 Jun 04 fax insert.
   Exhibit I. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Jun 04.
   Exhibit J. DD Form 149, dated 15 Jun 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit K. Letters, Applicant, dated 23 Jul & 7 Aug 04,
                          w/atchs.




                                   JOSEPH A. ROJ
                                   Panel Chair