RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00261
            INDEX CODE:
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  24 APRIL 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His type of separation and narrative reason for  separation  be  changed
to general.

2.  His rank be restored to Staff Sergeant (SSgt).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He and other noncommissioned  (NCO)  officers  were  sexually  discriminated
against by a female officer in his chain of command.  He requested  and  was
refused a transfer by his commander.  His case is another example of  unjust
treatment and discrimination by the Air Force.  His NCO status  was  removed
and the Air Force never supported his  rights  against  discrimination.   He
has been treated for depression since September 1981.

In support of the application, the applicant  submits  his  application  for
the Review of Discharge from the Armed  Forces  of  the  United  States  (DD
293).  (Note:  Although the applicant has listed past  performance  reports,
past awards, and VA records as attachments, these items  were  not  included
with his application.)
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s discharge case file is incomplete.   The  following  is  the
only known information concerning his discharge processing.   On  8  January
1985, the applicant enlisted in the  Regular  Air  Force  in  the  grade  of
airman first class (E-3) at the age of 21 for a period of 4 years.   He  was
progressively promoted to the grade of senior  airman  (E-4)  effective  and
with a date of rank of 8 May  1987  and  was  subsequently  appointed  as  a
sergeant (E-4).  At the time of discharge, the  applicant  had  a  projected
promotion and line number for the grade of Staff Sergeant.

He received performance reports closing 7 January 1987, 7 January  1987,  31
August 1987, 30 March 1988, and 30 March 1982, in which the overall  ratings
were “9.”  On his  final  performance  report  closing  16  March  1990,  he
received an overall rating of “1.”

On 1 December 1989, he  received  a  letter  of  counseling  concerning  the
performance of his duties.

On 24 January 1990, a clinical psychiatrist  diagnosed  the  applicant  with
DSM-III-R, AXIS I:  Major Depression, and  Axis  II:  Personality  Disorder,
Not Otherwise Specified (NOS), manifested by avoidant and  schizoid  traits.
The examiner indicated that as a result of the diagnoses, the applicant  was
clearly unsuited for further military service, and  if  retained  on  active
duty, his behavior would likely create additional  management  problems  for
his commander,  to  the  detriment  of  the  U.S.  Air  Force.   He  further
recommended prompt administrative separation under provisions of  Air  Force
regulations as the applicant’s condition was not  responsive  to  repetitive
corrective measures through medical channels.

On 6 March 1990, the applicant’s commander notified the  applicant  that  he
was recommending he be separated from the Air Force under the provisions  of
AFR 39-10, Conditions That Interfere With Military  Service,  Character  and
Behavior Disorder.  On the same date, the applicant acknowledged receipt  of
the notification, consulted counsel,  and  waived  his  right  to  submit  a
statement on his behalf.  The remainder of the discharge case file is not  a
matter of record.  He was discharged in the grade of senior airman (E-4)  on
9 May 1990 with  an  honorable  discharge  under  the  provisions  of  39-10
(conditions  that  interfere  with  Military  service  –  not  disability  –
character and behavior disorder).  He had served 5  years  4  months  and  2
days of active duty service to include 1  year  9  months  and  26  days  of
foreign service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial of the applicant’s request  that  his  rank
of SSgt be restored.  DPPPWB states the applicant was  tentatively  selected
for promotion to SSgt during cycle 90B5  (promotions  effective  Feb  -  Jul
90).  He received a promotion sequence number which would  have  incremented
on 1 June 1990; however, he became ineligible  for  promotion  consideration
once processing of involuntary separation was initiated.  DPPPWB opines  the
commander was acting within his authority  when  he  made  the  decision  to
recommend  the  applicant  for  involuntary  discharge.   Additionally,  the
applicant has not provided  any  evidence  to  support  his  contentions  of
sexual discrimination.  DPPPWB’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  stated  that   based   on   the
documentation on file in the master personnel  records,  the  discharge  was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge regulation.  The  discharge  was  within  the  discretion  of  the
discharge authority.  They also note that the applicant did not  submit  any
new evidence or identify any errors  or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the
discharge processing.  He provided no  facts  warranting  a  change  to  his
narrative reason for separation.  DPPRS’s evaluation, with  attachments,  is
at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his letter dated 5 April 2005,  the  applicant  reiterates  his  previous
contentions, and requests various personnel  documents  pertaining  to  past
military and civilian personnel.  The applicant’s complete  response  is  at
Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice warranting  changes  to  the  applicant’s
type of separation and/or narrative reason for his separation.  There is  no
indication in the available record the applicant’s  discharge  was  improper
or unjust.  After careful consideration of the available evidence, we  found
no indication that the actions taken to effect his separation  was  improper
or contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations in effect at  the
time.  We found no evidence of  sexual  discrimination  as  alleged  by  the
applicant.  In regards to his request to restore his  rank,  we  agree  with
the  opinion  and  recommendation  of  the  Air  Force  office  of   primary
responsibility.  The applicant has provided no  evidence  with  successfully
disputes HQ AFPC/DPPPWB’s interpretation of the regulation or  showing  that
he was unjustly  treated  in  regards  to  his  rank  at  the  time  of  his
discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

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 28 July 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

           Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
           Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
           Mr. Terry L. Scott, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR  Docket  Number
BC-2005-00261:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Jan 05 w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 11 Mar 05, w/atch.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 29 Mar 05.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Apr 05.
     Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 5 Apr 05.





                                  KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                  Panel Chair