RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2004-01521
            INDEX CODE 108.09
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His former grade of senior airman (SRA) be restored so he  may  retire
in that grade rather than as an airman first class (A1C).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was in the process of receiving his SRA grade back but  his  “files
were frozen” while he  was  being  processed  through  the  Air  Force
Disability Evaluation System (DES), which precluded his promotion.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 26 Dec  91.  During
the period in question, he was assigned to the 27th Supply Squadron at
----- AFB, as a fuels distribution journeyman.  He was promoted to the
grade of SRA on 26 Dec 94.

A 24 Sep 96 Medical Summary reported the applicant  had  approximately
four months of lower  back  pain  with  little  response  to  physical
therapy, rest, traction, and medication. A  Medical  Evaluation  Board
(MEB) was recommended if the applicant’s pain persisted for more  than
six months.  In Oct 96, he was referred to the ----- AFB Mental Health
Clinic (MHC) for assistance in coping with his chronic pain.

On 16 Dec 96, applicant was notified  of  his  commander's  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for the following:

            -- Between, on or about 11-29 Oct 96, near ----- AFB,  the
applicant wrote three checks totaling  $262.47  and  had  insufficient
funds to cover them.

            -- On or about 1 Nov 96, he wrote a check to  the  Army  &
Air Force Exchange Service for $90.00 and had  insufficient  funds  to
cover it.

            -- On or about 1 Nov 96, he wrote a check to the ----- AFB
Nonappropriated Lodging Fund for $14.00 and had insufficient funds  to
cover it.

The applicant consulted counsel, waived his  right  to  court-martial,
requested a personal appearance and submitted a written  presentation.
On 20 Dec 96, the commander found him guilty and imposed punishment in
the form of reduction to the grade of airman and  restriction  to  the
base for 60 days.

The applicant appealed and, on 31  Dec  96,  the  appellate  authority
granted his appeal “in full,” and imposed punishment in  the  form  of
reduction to the grade of A1C, rather than airman, and restriction  to
the base for 60 days.  [The  applicant’s  appeal  submission  was  not
included in his available military records.] His date  of  rank  (DOR)
for A1C was 31 Dec 96.  The Article 15 was filed  in  the  applicant’s
Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

On 31 Jan 97, the Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period  31
Jan 96 through 30 Jan 97 was referred to the applicant. He was  marked
“Unacceptable”  in  on/off   duty   conduct   and   “Ineffective”   in
supervisory/leadership skills. Both the rater and  the  indorser  gave
the applicant a promotion recommendation of “1”—not  recommended.  The
rater cited the applicant’s substandard performance, repeated  failure
to meet financial obligations for more  than  a  year,  unprofessional
behavior towards superiors, and failure to meet standards  on  several
occasions.  The  applicant  submitted  comments,  but   the   indorser
concurred  with  the  rater’s  evaluation  and   recommended   against
promotion  and  retention.  The  commander  provided  a   Supplemental
Evaluation Sheet and noted the  applicant  received  counselings,  two
Letters of Reprimand (LORs), and an Article 15. However, the commander
did not agree with the “1” rating and upgraded the EPR to  an  overall
rating of “2.”  The commander allowed  that  the  applicant’s  overall
conduct  and  leadership,  while  unacceptable,  could  be   partially
attributed to medical problems.  The applicant’s EPRs  prior  to  this
referral report received the highest overall recommendation of “5.”

An Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) convened on 7 Mar 97  and
recommended the  applicant  be  placed  on  the  Temporary  Disability
Retirement List (TDRL) with a 30% rating for pain disorder  associated
with general medical condition, mechanical  low  back  pain,  definite
industrial impairment. The applicant concurred with the findings on 14
Mar 97.

Since the applicant had previously held the higher grade of  SRA  from
26 Dec 94 to 19 Dec 96, his case was forwarded to the Secretary of the
Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) for a grade determination.  On  28
Mar 97, SAFPC determined the applicant did not serve satisfactorily in
any higher grade than A1C, in accordance with Title 10, United  States
Code, Section 1372, grade upon retirement for physical disability.

On 4 Jun 97, after five years, five months, and nine  days  of  active
service, the applicant was placed on the TDRL for temporary disability
in the grade of A1C.  The  applicant  would  be  required  to  undergo
periodic medical evaluations while on the TDRL.

An 6 Nov 98 Narrative Summary by Wilford Hall  Medical  Center  (WHMC)
reported the applicant’s first TDRL evaluation. The Summary noted  the
applicant had an exceptionally thorough  workup  for  his  back  pain,
including  consults   with   Neurosurgery,   Physical   Medicine   and
Rehabilitation, a neurologist and an anesthesiologist.  However,  none
of the workups demonstrated any physical cause for his back pain.  The
applicant was first referred  to  the  Cannon  MHC  for  a  commander-
directed evaluation in Feb 96  after  he  had  made  some  threatening
comments about, and related  to,  his  supervisor/flight  chief  while
alcoholically intoxicated. No psychiatric diagnosis was made  at  that
time. Diagnosis was pain disorder associated with  both  psychological
factors and chronic mechanical low back pain.  Continuance on the TDRL
was recommended.

A 6 Feb 99 TDRL evaluation at WHMC reported  the  applicant  indicated
the onset of low back pain in Mar 96. Specifically not  noted  in  his
original dictation was a reported fall,  and  the  pain  started  that
evening. The applicant reported his pain was 75% back pain and 25% leg
pain. The applicant had  failed  all  therapy  regimens  and  was  not
significantly improving.

Another IPEB convened on  24  Feb  99  and  reported  the  applicant’s
medical condition had essentially remained the same  as  when  he  was
placed on the TDRL and would not  significantly  change  in  the  next
several years. The applicant was found unfit because of pain  disorder
associated with mechanical chronic low back pain, definite social  and
industrial adaptability impairment. Permanent retirement  at  30%  was
recommended. On  24  Mar  99,  the  applicant  nonconcurred  with  the
recommended findings, waived a formal hearing, and submitted a written
rebuttal. In his rebuttal, the applicant raised the issue of regaining
his rank of SRA, which he contended he was in the process  of  getting
back when he was first placed on the TDRL, and requested retirement at
45% in the rank of SRA.

The case was referred to SAFPC for final disposition. In a  16 Apr  99
evaluation, SAFPC noted the applicant’s chronic pain condition and low
back pain were associated conditions and he could be rated for one  or
the other. The evidence for his impairment for disability  was  higher
in the mental health rating, at 30%, than for his low back pain, which
would only rate  10%.  SAFPC  was  sympathetic  with  the  applicant’s
continuing symptoms, but noted the DES could only  offer  compensation
for conditions rendering a member unfit for continued  active  service
and then only for the degree of impairment  present  at  the  time  of
separation. The applicant was directed to be  removed  from  the  TDRL
with a disability rating of 30%.

The applicant was removed from the TDRL effective 6 May 99 and retired
in the grade of A1C for medical disability at 30%.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPD concludes a  review  of  the  preponderance  of  evidence
determined the applicant was treated fairly throughout the DES process
and was properly rated under governing directives at the time  of  his
medical retirement.  They  find  no  rationale  or  justification  for
restoring his SRA rank based on the grade determination  completed  at
the  time  of  his  disability  processing.   Therefore,   denial   is
recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 4 Jun 04 for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of
this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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. After a thorough  review  of  the
evidence  of  record  and  the  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded his SRA grade should be  restored.  The  applicant  has  not
shown the Article 15 he  received  for  writing  bad  checks  and  the
resultant reduction from SRA to A1C was unfounded or unjust. On 28 Mar
97, SAFPC determined he had not served satisfactorily in the grade  of
SRA and accordingly denied reinstatement of the higher grade  for  the
purpose of retirement in that grade. In addition,  the  applicant  has
not provided evidence his  commander  attempted  to  restore  the  SRA
grade. We agree with the recommendations of the Air  Force  and  adopt
the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having  suffered  either
an error or an injustice. Therefore, we find no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 22 July 2004 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member
                 Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2004-01521 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 May 04.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 27 May 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jun 04.





                                   LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                   Panel Chair