RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03033
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release  or  Discharge  from  the  Armed
Forces, be amended to reflect the National  Defense  Service  Medal  (NDSM),
Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM),  the  Military  Outstanding  Volunteer
Service Medal (MOVSM) and the Joint Combat Operations Course.

2.  His  Evaluation  Performance  Report  (EPR)  for  the  period  ending  3
December 2001, Section III, Item 7, be corrected to reflect “Highly  skilled
writer and communicator.”

3.  He be promoted to senior airman.

4.  The narrative reason for his  separation  be  changed  from  Personality
Disorder to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

5.  By amendment at Exhibit G, applicant requests his records be amended  to
reflect his full and proper name of:  xxxxxxxxxxx.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His requests for  correction  of  records  were  merely  overlooked  by  his
superiors with no intended malice.  He has been denied honors  to  which  he
is entitled and they should be accorded  to  him.   He  asks  the  Board  to
review  all  his  issues  and  to  be  fair   and   magnanimous   in   their
deliberations.  He seeks through the Board to clear his  record  so  he  may
continue with his life with honor and dignity.

In support of his request, applicant submits a personal  statement,  a  copy
of his DD Form 214, a copy of the Defense Link news  article  regarding  the
NDSM,  copies  of  his  EPRs,  Letters  of  Appreciation,  copies   of   the
meteorological  forecast  discussion  bulletins,   meteorological   forecast
reviews, USAF Operations Weather Squadron Standard Operating  Procedures,  a
statement by a professor from the Psychology Department, Bellevue  Community
College, a copy of his VA Rating Decision and an excerpt from a  publication
on Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.   The  applicant’s  submission,
with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of  four  years
on 3 November 1999 in the grade of airman  first  class.   He  received  two
EPRs for the periods ending 30 April 2001 and 3 December 2001, in which  the
overall ratings were 5 and 3, respectively.

On 26 October  2000  and  7  June  2001,  applicant  received  a  Letter  of
Counseling for failure to go.

On 12 November 2001, applicant received a Letter of  Reprimand  for  failure
to go.

On 25 January 2002, the staff  clinical  psychologist,  performed  a  mental
health evaluation on the applicant based on the  request  of  the  applicant
for a second opinion to the administrative  separation  recommendation  made
by the Life Skills  Support  Center  at  Ramstein  AB  Germany.   The  staff
psychologist  documented  the  applicant’s  Axis  I  -  diagnosis  as  Major
Depressive Disorder, Single Episode, Severe without Psychotic  Features,  in
partial remission; Axis II - Personality Disorder  Not  Otherwise  Specified
(Borderline, Narcissistic, and Avoidant traits noted) Axis IV  -Occupational
Problems, disturbed relationships/lack of support  from  family  of  origin.
The clinical psychologist concurred with  the  recommendation  made  by  the
Ramstein  Life  Skills  Support  Center  and  treatment  recommendations  to
include  continued  maintenance  on  psychotropic  medication   to   prevent
recurrence/exacerbation  of   his   depression.    Long-term   psychotherapy
approaches that focused on confrontation and clarification of  his  patterns
of disturbed relationships were determined to be of most use  in  countering
the most disruptive symptoms.  The recommendation to the commanding  officer
was to process the applicant for administrative separation.

On 2 August 1999, in accordance with AFPD 36-32 and AFI  36-3208,  paragraph
5.11.9, Mental Disorders,  the  commander  initiated  discharge  proceedings
against the applicant.  The applicant was advised  of  his  rights  in  this
matter.  After consulting military legal counsel,  the  applicant  submitted
statements in his  behalf.   On  12  March  2002,  the  discharge  authority
directed that the applicant be discharged  from  the  Air  Force  under  the
provisions  of  AFPD  36-32  and  AFI  36-3208,  paragraph  5.11.9,   Mental
Disorders, with service  characterized  as  honorable.   The  applicant  was
honorably discharged on 19 March 2002 by reason  of  “Personality  Disorder”
with a Separation Code of “JFX” and a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code  of
“2C.”  He had served 2 years, 4 months and 17 days on active duty.

On 4  December  2003,  during  a  records  review,  Headquarters  Air  Force
Personnel Center identified that the applicant was  eligible  for  the  NDSM
and amended the DD  Form  214  to  reflect  this  award.  In  addition,  the
applicant was advised that he was not eligible for award of the  AFGCM.   On
12 December 2003, the  applicant  acknowledged  his  ineligibility  for  the
AFGCM and withdrew his request.  On  4  February  2004,  the  applicant  was
advised by this same office that the award of the MOVSM  must  be  a  signed
and endorsed recommendation and not self-recommended.

On 15 January 2004, during a records  review,  the  Education  and  Training
Office verified the applicant’s completion for the Joint  Combat  Operations
course and advised the applicant that his DD Form 214 would be updated.

Documents provided by the applicant indicate that on  21  August  2003,  The
Department of Veterans Affairs awarded him a 50  percent  service  connected
disability for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends  the  application  be  denied.   DPPPWB  states  that
airmen are promoted (fully qualified) to senior airman upon meeting  minimum
requirements as outlined in the Air Force instruction,  recommended  by  the
commander in writing, and have either 36 months time-in-service  and  20  or
28  months  time-in-grade,  whichever  occurs  first.   DPPPWB  states  that
although the applicant had sufficient TIG to be promoted to  senior  airman,
no promotion recommendation letter from the  commander  or  promotion  order
advancing him is in his records.  The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is  at  Exhibit
C.

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied.  The  BCMR
Medical Consultant states that at the time  of  the  applicant’s  discharge,
the personality disorder was the condition  that  interfered  with  military
duty  and  not  his  depression.   Air  Force  mental  health  professionals
considered PTSD as a  diagnosis  and  were  fully  aware  of  the  childhood
traumas he reported that were contributing to his symptoms.  They  concluded
his  symptoms  attributable  to  depression  (including   Major   Depressive
Disorder,  Dysthymic  Disorder  and   “rule   out   PTSD”)   had   responded
satisfactorily to therapy and did not warrant a  Medical  Evaluation  Board.
The BCMR Medical Consultant states  the  evidence  of  record  indicates  an
overwhelming majority of mental  health  professionals  are  in  concurrence
that the  applicant  has  a  Personality  Disorder.   At  the  time  of  his
discharge, mental health professionals concluded  his  personality  disorder
was the reason he was  unable  to  adapt  to  military  service.   The  BCMR
Medical  Consultant  further  states  that  the  applicant’s   symptoms   of
depression were not determined to be of  sufficient  severity  to  interfere
with military duty and did not require  a  medical  evaluation  board.   The
BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPPE recommends the application be denied.  DPPPE  states  it  is  the
rater’s responsibility to determine whether a member meets standards and  to
appropriately mark the EPR.  Since no documentation from the rater to  state
why the report was marked low or whether he  concurs  with  the  change  was
provided,  DPPPE  states  evidence  has  not  been  provided  to  prove  the
assessment is inaccurate.  The AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Applicant states that during the contested EPR period, he  was  selected  to
write many of the weather  bulletins  for  his  flight.   Also  during  this
period, he was the second individual and the first enlisted  man  of  United
States Air Forces in Europe, Operational Weather  Squadron,  to  attend  the
Joint Combat Operations Course.  In May 2001,  he  had  noted  an  increased
mean stress level due to constantly shifting sleep and  eating  schedule,  a
decrease in health level along  with  increased  exhaustion  and  consistent
maximum mental exertion.  Upon his discharge, he  was  pleased  that  he  no
longer was trapped as a weather forecaster  and  in  a  unit  where  he  was
completely miserable.  He makes no claim  to  be  a  higher  form  of  life;
however, he cannot in good conscience sit at leisure while there is  a  need
for him elsewhere.  He also knows that he  is  talented  and  capable  of  a
great deal.  He loves this country with all his heart and soul and makes  no
claim other than he is a decent and honorable man and wants  the  chance  to
serve without restriction.  He is aware he is asking a  great  deal  and  is
willing to meet with any DoD representative at  any  location  so  that  his
status may be gauged.  Applicant’s letter 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice with respect  to  the  applicant’s  requests
for the award of the  Military  Outstanding  Volunteer  Service  Medal,  his
Evaluation Performance Report for the  period  ending  3  December  2001  be
corrected to reflect “highly skilled writer and communicator,” promotion  to
senior airman, the narrative reason for his separation be changed  to  “Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder,” and his records be changed to reflect  his  full
name is Andrew Patrick David George Everett.  We took careful notice of  the
applicant’s complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case.   His
contentions in this regard were noted; however,  in  our  opinion,  the  Air
Force offices of primary  responsibility  have  adequately  addressed  these
contentions.  We are in agreement with their  assessments  and  adopt  their
findings as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  failed  to
sustain his burden to demonstrate  the  existence  of  error  or  injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no  basis  to
grant relief.

4.  In regard to the applicant’s request that his DD Form 214  reflect  the
National Defense Service Medal and  his  completion  of  the  Joint  Combat
Operations Course, we note he was advised by the Air Force Personnel Center
that a correction to his DD Form 214 would be accomplished to reflect these
requests.  With regard to his request for  award  of  the  Air  Force  Good
Conduct Medal, on 12 December 2003, the applicant  withdrew  this  request.
Therefore, action by this Board on these requests is not required.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of probable 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 14 October 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
      Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR  Docket  Number
03-03033:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Sep 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 19 Feb 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 2 Jul 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, undated.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jul 04.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Aug 04 w/atch.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 28 Aug 04.




                                             THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                             Chair