RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00480
            INDEX CODE:  131.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

      MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 13 Aug 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His medical records be corrected and he be promoted to the  grade  of  chief
master sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was forced to undergo psychiatric evaluation because he  wrote  a  letter
critical of Air Force promotion  policies.   The  psychiatrist  disqualified
him, even though he was twice cleared under the  Human  Reliability  Program
(HRP) prior to going overseas.  He requested a psychiatric evaluation  by  a
civilian psychiatrist but his request was denied.  After his retirement,  he
received a psychiatric evaluation  by  a  Department  of  Veterans'  Affairs
psychiatrist, who disagreed with the  Air  Force  psychiatrist.   After  his
retirement he had to get an evaluation prior  to  employment  with  Lockheed
Aircraft because of the Air Force  evaluation.   He  passed  the  evaluation
with flying colors and worked for the company for 14 years.

The Air Force promoted an individual in a surplus Air Force Specialty  (AFS)
that was not needed and had him train the individual as his supervisor  when
nobody in his AFS that was eligible for promotion  was  promoted.   Enlisted
men could not  get  promoted  at  the  time  because  thousands  of  Reserve
officers were allowed to enlist as  master  sergeants.   Applicant  believes
that because of his academic and technical background he should be  promoted
to chief master sergeant.

In support of his request, applicant provided documentation  extracted  from
his personnel and medical records,  newspaper  excerpts,  and  documentation
associated  with  his  request  for  congressional  inquiry.   His  complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army on 19 Aug 42 and  served  until  29  Aug
45.  He enlisted in the U.S. Navy on 14 Oct 46 and served until 17  Sep  53.
He contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 30 Aug  55.
He was progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of  staff  sergeant,  having
assumed that grade effective and with a date  of  rank  of  1  Jun  58.   He
served as an electronics maintenance  technician.   He  voluntarily  retired
from the Air Force on 30 Nov 67, having served 22 years, 5  months,  and  14
days on active duty.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to the applicant's  service  career,
extracted from his military records, are contained in  the  letter  prepared
by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.

On 18 Nov 69, the Board considered and denied a similar appeal submitted  by
the  applicant.   For  an  accounting  of  the   facts   and   circumstances
surrounding the  applicant’s  request  and  the  rationale  of  the  earlier
decision by the Board, see Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial.   The  Medical  Consultant
states applicant was disqualified  from  the  HRP  due  to  a  diagnosis  of
emotionally unstable personality, chronic, mild in accordance with  AFR  35-
99.  Repeat evaluation as well as review by the Major Command Staff  Surgeon
sustained the recommendation.  The HRP is to ensure the highest standard  of
reliability in personnel performing duties associated with nuclear  weapons.
 The responsibility and authority for  determining  reliability  of  members
under the  HRP  rests  solely  with  the  unit  commander.   In  matters  of
emotional, behavioral, and psychiatric problems, commanders rely on  medical
evaluations and  recommendations.   When  competent  medical  authority  has
recommended against certification, it is unlikely a  commander  will  decide
in a contrary manner  especially  if  there  is  evidence  he  has  observed
consistent with the recommendation.  In the  Medical  Consultant's  opinion,
the  evidence  of  the  case  file  and  the  detailed   psychological   and
psychiatric documentation  supports  the  medical  recommendations  and  the
commander's decision to disqualify the applicant from the HRP.

Regarding  his  contention  he  was  denied   evaluation   by   a   civilian
psychiatrist, the Medical Consultant states a  civilian  psychiatrist  would
not have the occupational information  and  long  term  medical  information
necessary for such evaluations, and would not be in a position to judge  the
unique military requirements of clearing someone  for  duties  with  nuclear
weapons under the HRP.  Such an examination was not acceptable and  in  fact
current  regulations  clearly  define  competent   medical   authority   for
reliability program purposes as being restricted to military physicians  who
are specifically trained and authorized to  perform  such  evaluations.   At
the time of his  DVA  examination  he  denied  all  problems  and  presented
himself in a favorable light.  The  psychiatrist's  diagnosis  was  accurate
based on his evaluation which was limited solely to clinical interview.   He
did not have the detailed psychological testing and  collateral  information
from supervisors, personnel records and prior evaluations used by Air  Force
evaluators.  The DVA examination was not for the purpose  of  clearance  for
duties involving nuclear weapons.  His work subsequent to  service  did  not
involve  work  with  nuclear  weapons  and  again  the   purpose   of   that
psychological examination was not for clearance under the  HRP  which  would
have been required if he was being hired to work with nuclear weapons.

He was denied reenlistment in October 1965 based in part on the  results  of
his psychiatry examination;  however,  evidence  of  record  also  indicates
performance reports and supervisory assessments also formed  the  basis  for
his nonselection.  Although he performed well in his last year  of  service,
there is no evidence he sought to appeal his denial  during  the  period  of
time when duty performance was documented as excellent.

The Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded that the Medical Consultant is  basing  his  opinion  on
the subjective opinion of someone else.  He disregards the unbiased  opinion
of the DVA psychiatrist who disagrees with the Air Force  psychiatrist.   He
reiterates he was twice cleared under the HRP and notes he served  honorably
in the Army and Navy.  He had an unblemished record in  a  highly  technical
career field and could not get promoted one grade  in  nine  years.   During
that period he saw individuals get a two grade jump in  six  months  and  he
was much better qualified than  many  who  were  promoted  to  chief  master
sergeant.  He was forced to become a technical instructor against his  will.
 It was not that he could not get information across  to  the  students;  he
just hated being an instructor because he  was  forced  into  it.   The  Air
Force ignored the  facts  that  he  had  never  been  arrested  or  received
nonjudicial punishment. It did not matter that he passed numerous  technical
courses  and  had  an  Associate's  degree.   All  that  mattered  was   the
performance reports and favoritism.  His complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 find no evidence of error in this  case
and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted  in
support of his appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an  injustice.
 Applicant’s contentions are  duly  noted;  however,  we  do  not  find  his
assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive  to  override  the
evidence of record or the rationale provided by  the  Air  Force.   After  a
thorough review of the documentation provided we  found  no  evidence  which
would lead  us  to  believe  that  the  actions  taken  by  the  responsible
officials to effect his disqualification from the HRP were improper or  that
the decision was made based upon inappropriate considerations.   Nor  do  we
find evidence that he was qualified for or that he met the requirements  for
promotion to any grade higher than that in which  he  held.   Therefore,  in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  upon
which 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-2005-
00480 in Executive Session on 13 Oct 05, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
      Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

            Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Jan 05, w/atchs.
            Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
            Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant,  dated  13
Sep 05.
            Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Sep 05.
             Exhibit  E.   Letter,  Applicant,  dated  19  Sep  05,
w/atchs.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair