RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00877
            INDEX CODE: 145.01, 145.04, 108.01,
                                  108.03, 108.10
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  16 Sep 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be given a medical/mental evaluation by a Medical Evaluation Board
(MEB), with  compensation  appropriate  to  the  findings  [presumably
medical  retirement  and  associated  benefits],  and  her   discharge
certificate be reviewed with “corrections to the date from  April  15,
1999 to date this process is complete.”

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She should be compensated and made whole under laws prescribed in  the
National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year  2003  (NDAA  FY03),
highlighted in the GAO  04-258  Report  to  Congressional  Committees,
titled Military  Personnel  Information  on  Selected  National  Guard
Management Issues; Appendix V: Federal Protections for National  Guard
Whistleblower.

Her sworn statement of events dated Mar 98, while  on  military  duty,
was  protected  communication.   The  unfavorable   personnel   action
(reassigning  her  to  Bolling  AFB  for  mental  fitness,  indefinite
suspension of her security clearance, and removal from her  Department
of Defense (DOD) position) taken by the military  used  mental  health
evaluations after she made a protected disclosure.  Military  and  DOD
management knew about the protected communication before taking action
and they could not have taken the personnel action in absence  of  the
protected communications.

In her supplemental letter, the applicant further  contends  the  only
documentation of a mental problem  were  medical  records  during  the
period Apr 98 through Jun 99, while she was stationed at  the  Defense
Logistics Agency (DLA), Joint Reserves  Forces,  at  Ft. Belvoir,  VA.
The determination by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) that her
mental condition existed prior to service (EPTS) was  incorrect.   The
Apr 99  medical  assessment  started  a  chain  of  events  with  some
subsequent procedures being inappropriate.  As a result,  her  careers
as both a DOD civilian and a Reservist came to an end.

The applicant’s complete  submission  and  supplemental  letter,  with
attachments, are at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The  following  information  was  extracted  from  official  documents
provided by the applicant (Exhibit A) and her military/medical records
(Exhibit B).  Some of the documents referenced within other  documents
at Exhibit A were not included in the applicant’s submission.

The applicant served on active duty in the Army from 8 Jun  76  to  15
Dec 78.  After a short break in service,  she  joined  the  Air  Force
Reserves in May 79 and served on extended active duty from  11 Mar  to
17 Apr 91.

During the period in  question,  the  applicant  was  a  DOD  civilian
employee working as a GS-12 for  the  Defense  Technology  Information
Center (DTIC), which is part of the Defense Information Systems Agency
(DISA).  In this capacity, she had daily access to classified material
and had a Secret clearance.  She also periodically served as a  master
sergeant (MSgt) in the  Air  Force  Reserve  (Individual  Mobilization
Augmentee (IMA)) with duty at the DLA Reserve Readiness Office.   Both
facilities are located at Ft. Belvoir,  VA.   At  the  time  of  these
incidents, she had performed Air Force Reserve duty for  approximately
17 years, and had been a civilian employee of DOD for approximately 12
years.

On 2 Feb 98, while at DTIC  in  civilian  status,  she  made  a  sworn
statement that someone had stolen her purse with her  keys  on  21 Jan
98, and then placed it and her keys back in her locked desk drawer.

She was called to active duty on 20 Apr 98 with assignment to the DLA.
She was released from active duty for completion  of  required  active
service on 4 Sep 98.

The applicant was recalled to active duty on 1 Oct 98.

Around Oct 98, the applicant  reported  she  began  noticing  frequent
“anomalies” on her computers at home and at work,  which  led  her  to
believe someone was tampering with her files  and  E-mail.   Over  the
next few months, she noticed more and more of these anomalies, as well
as strange things happening in her  home  (finding  her  canned  goods
arranged in alphabetical order, items missing and then turning  up  in
obvious  places  later,  someone   had   either   shaved   her   dog’s
chest/stomach or replaced him with a similar  animal).   She  reported
this to  her  agency  and  the  DLA  Defense  Criminal  Investigations
Activity (DCIA) in a written statement on  3 Feb  99.   The  DLA  DCIA
conducted a criminal investigation around 4 Feb 99.  The investigators
concluded that no criminal activity had taken  place  and  recommended
her employing agency request a psychiatric evaluation.

The applicant was released from active duty for completion of required
active service on 15 Mar 99.

On 22 Mar 99, she was ordered to active duty to submit to  a  command-
directed mental evaluation and she cooperated.

According to a 2 Apr 99 Mental Health Evaluation by the  89th  Medical
Operations Squadron (89 MDOS/SGOHY)  at  Andrews  AFB,  the  applicant
underwent a comprehensive exam  on  25 Mar  99.   The  evaluation  was
initiated  secondary  to  problematic  behaviors  exhibited   by   the
applicant in the work place for the purpose of determining whether she
was fit for continued service in the Air Force.  Her  medical  records
were unavailable for  review  when  the  interview  and  psychological
testing were conducted.  She had inquired about  surveillance  at  her
home and office to identify  whoever  was  doing  these  things.   She
denied having any previous contact with  mental  health  providers,  a
family history of mental health issues, any medical problems or taking
any current medications.  She  reported  she  drank  alcohol  only  on
special   occasions.    She   also   reported   no    depression    or
suicidal/homicidal ideation.  The clinical  assessment  was  that  the
applicant’s illness was characterized by  delusional  thought  content
and virtually no insight into her disorder as she  viewed  herself  as
intact, stable and without emotional difficulties.   The  psychologist
reported there was evidence of a psychiatric  disorder  of  sufficient
severity to warrant disposition  through  military  medical  channels.
Diagnosis  was  mental  disorders   (rule   out   psychotic/delusional
disorders). Psychological and/or psychiatric  interventions  would  be
necessary to reduce the impact of the applicant’s delusional system on
her lifestyle.  A thorough medical evaluation and reclamation  of  her
security clearance were recommended, as was a physical profile of  S4T
(temporarily not worldwide qualified).

A psychiatric evaluation with the Chief of Psychiatry, HQ 89  AW,  was
recommended, but apparently the applicant refused to cooperate at this
point.  She denied having any  previous  contact  with  mental  health
providers or any family history of mental health  issues.   The  Chief
did not meet with her and her medical records were not  available  for
review.  In Apr 99,  she  apparently  requested  voluntary  length  of
service retirement from the Reserves, to be effective 30 Jun 99.

Regardless, on 1 Jun 99, in a Line of Duty  (LOD)  Determination,  the
Chief diagnosed  the  applicant  as  having  psychotic  disorder,  not
otherwise specified (NOS), with marked impairment for  military  duty,
checked the box indicating she was mentally responsible, and concluded
the onset  of  her  paranoid  and  bizarre  beliefs  was  unknown  but
apparently was present in Feb 98 prior to  her  extended  active  duty
tour, did exist prior to service (EPTS) and was not in the LOD.

On 3 Jun 99, because the applicant’s disorder was found to impair  her
ability to perform military duty, she was subsequently relieved of her
current assignment, released  from  active  duty  on  30 Jun  99,  and
assigned to the  Retired  Reserve  Section  effective  30 Jun  99,  by
Reserve Order EK-4161, with entitlement to Reserve retired pay at  age
60.

On 1 Jul 99, the applicant returned to her civilian employment at DTIC
but because DTIC had received less than 24 hours notice of her return,
management asserted they had assigned her to another similar  position
and retained the employee who had been performing  her  duties  during
her 15-month absence  in  order  to  avoid  mission  disruption.   The
applicant’s job title, series, grade and promotion opportunities would
remain the same in her other position.

On 14-15 Jul 99, a final LOD determination of the  applicant’s  mental
disorder found it to be in the LOD because the applicant had  been  on
active duty for almost two  consecutive  years  and  whatever  medical
issues that exist must have  occurred  while  in  the  active  status.
Further, there was  no  clear  evidence  that  her  disorder,  or  the
underlying condition causing  it,  existed  before  she  entered  into
active duty or between periods of service, and was not  aggravated  by
service.

The applicant filed a complaint regarding these issues and also  wrote
to her Senator, contending her reassignment did not  comply  with  the
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment  Rights  Act  (USERRA).
She also believed she was being retaliated  against  for  having  gone
full-time Reservist.  Responses were provided to the applicant and the
Senator.

On  4  Aug  99,  the  DOD   Washington   HQs   Services   Consolidated
Adjudications Facility (WHS/CAF), Personnel and Security, advised  the
applicant that, based  on  the  DLA  Criminal  Investigative  Activity
Report dated 4 Feb 99, which raised issues regarding her judgment  and
reliability, they were requesting a medical/psychiatric evaluation  at
Walter  Reed  Army  Medical  Center  (WRAMC)  so  that   an   informed
adjudicative determination regarding her security clearances could  be
made.

On 5 Aug 99,  the  applicant  complained  to  the  Director  of  DISA,
questioning DTIC’s motivation in moving her and contending it did have
an adverse impact on her.  She indicated this was the second  time  in
four years that DTIC management had reassigned her to another position
description with an unspecified set of  duties.   She  questioned  the
need for a medical/psychiatric evaluation and alleged retaliation.

The applicant’s submission includes a 19 Oct 99 letter from a civilian
clinical  psychologist  to  the  applicant’s  civilian  counsel.   The
psychologist diagnosed her as suffering from a  “Delusional  Disorder,
Persecutory Type,” and feared a poor prognosis because of  her  denial
of her illness.  No further information is available.

A Memo for Record (MFR), dated 5 Nov 99, by her supervisor  while  the
applicant was assigned to Bolling AFB for approximately  three  months
(Feb through Apr 99) noted she exhibited no signs of unusual behavior,
provided an excellent  work  product,  took  the  initiative  and  was
professional in military bearing.

On 10 Feb 00, the Acting Chief, Security Division, DISA,  advised  the
applicant that her scheduled medical/psychiatric evaluation  at  WRAMC
had been cancelled and, per her request, she could have her own  board
certified  psychiatrist  conduct  the  evaluation  at   her   expense.
However, they would  directly  provide  her  chosen  psychiatrist  the
criteria that  required  evaluation  along  with  the  information  of
security concern that prompted the request for the evaluation.

On [12?] Mar 00, the  applicant  was  reassigned  from  the  DISA/DTIC
Programs, Products & Services Division to the  DISA/DTIC  Reference  &
Network Services Division with the same title  [technical  information
specialist], grade [GS-12 Step 5], and occupation code [1412].

In a 9 Aug 00 letter to DISA, the applicant’s counsel  mentioned  that
the  deadline  by  which  WHS/CAF  was  to  receive  a  copy  of   the
medical/psychiatric evaluation was apparently extended from 28 Jul  00
to 11 Aug 00.  However, without conceding any  position  or  affirming
any perception regarding his client’s current mental  status,  he  now
requested that she be afforded another accommodating position pursuant
to the Rehabilitation Act  of  1973.   He  indicated  that,  while  no
concession was being made that his client could no longer function  in
a position involving the use or handling  of  classified  information,
they wanted to “explore all available options to secure her a position
that either does not necessitate a security clearance, or  requires  a
lower  level  of  clearance.”   He  asked  that  DISA   uphold   their
obligations to accommodate the applicant’s disability.

On [19?] Aug  00,  the  Chief,  Security  Office,  DISA,  advised  the
applicant that, as they had not  yet  received  a  medical/psychiatric
evaluation from her own physician,  they  were  again  requesting  she
undergo the required evaluation at WRAMC.  The option of using her own
physician was no longer available.

On 27 Aug 00, the applicant was reassigned to the DISA/DTIC Collection
Division with the same title, grade, and occupation code.

On 28 Sep 00,  the  applicant  indicated  her  consent  to  undergo  a
medical/psychiatric evaluation and understood it would be audio-taped,
per her request.

On 6 Oct 00, the applicant was interviewed at the WRAMC’s Occupational
Psychiatric Clinic.  She was informed of the  non-confidential  nature
of the evaluation, and that a documented report of the evaluation  and
opinion would be  sent  to  the  requesting  agency.   The  20 Nov  00
Security Evaluation from the WRAMC psychiatrist indicated there was no
frankly paranoid ideation or delusions, but  the  applicant  exhibited
overly-determined persecutory themes and suspiciousness.  Insight  was
poor; judgment was intact. Further, the applicant’s suspiciousness and
disorganization impeded this evaluation in that  requested  collateral
information and testing had not been  provided  in  a  timely  manner.
Without the  corroborating  and  collateral  information  and  testing
requested, it was difficult to make a definitive diagnosis,  but  that
it was likely she suffered  from  a  primary  thought  disorder  or  a
paranoid personality disorder.  She clearly manifested  a  pattern  of
thought and behavior that demonstrated a pattern of poor judgment  and
reliability.  Diagnosis was  delusional  disorder,  persecutory  type,
with paranoid personality traits.  The psychiatrist  opined  that  her
prognosis was poor given her poor insight and unwillingness to  engage
in further therapy.  She was  fully  competent,  mentally  capable  of
handling her own financial affairs, and not a  danger  to  herself  or
others.

On 22 Dec 00, WHS/CAF issued the  applicant  a  Statement  of  Reasons
(SOR) to Revoke  Eligibility  for  Access  to  Classified  Information
and/or Occupancy of a Sensitive Position, setting  forth  the  reasons
why WHS/CAF  could  not  make  an  affirmative  finding  that  it  was
consistent with national security to  grant  or  continue  a  security
clearance for the applicant or to assign her to sensitive duties.  The
SOR alleged the  applicant  had  demonstrated  questionable  judgment,
untrustworthiness, unreliability, and an unwillingness to comply  with
rules and regulations.  The  SOR  also  indicated  the  applicant  had
attempted to circumvent and/or delay WHS/CAF’s adjudicative  requests.
Further, after agreeing to laboratory testing,  psychological  testing
(or providing results of prior testing), and a  follow-up  visit  with
WRAMC, she failed to comply despite her attorney’s agreement to permit
her to do so.

On 28 Dec 00, DISA advised the DTIC Administrator that, based  on  the
22 Dec 00  SOR,  effective  immediately,  the  applicant’s  access  to
classified and sensitive information was  suspended  pending  a  final
determination of eligibility by the  WHS/CAF.   DTIC  so  advised  the
applicant on 4 Jan 01, and proposed to suspend her  indefinitely  from
active duty and pay status from her  position  as  a  GS-12  Technical
Information  Specialist,  pending  the  final   disposition   of   the
investigation and review of her eligibility for a  security  clearance
and occupancy of a sensitive  position  by  WHS/CAF.   There  were  no
duties of a non-sensitive nature available which would be suitable for
assignment while awaiting a final decision on her security  clearance.
Therefore, for now she was being placed on administrative  leave  with
pay, but he was proposing she be suspended for an indefinite period of
time without pay.  She was advised of her appeal rights.

The applicant’s counsel provided  a  five-page  rebuttal  to  DTIC  on
30 Jan 01, contending the proposed suspension without pay  constituted
an unfair, extreme action contrary to customary Government policy.   A
supporting statement from a co-worker was also submitted.

On 6 Feb 01, the applicant filed a Complaint  of  Possible  Prohibited
Personnel Practice or Other Prohibited Activity complaint with the  US
Office of Special Counsel (OSC).   The  applicant  contended  she  was
facing revocation of her security clearance and suspension without pay
based a finding of alleged issues of emotional, mental and personality
disorders  (handicapping  conditions).   Although  she  disputed   the
accuracy of the alleged finding, it was nonetheless being used  as  an
accepted fact for the basis of her suspension.

On 7 Feb 01, DTIC  advised  the  applicant  that  a  minimum  security
clearance of Secret was required to work at DISA, and  there  were  no
duties she could perform without a security  clearance.   Accordingly,
she was  indefinitely  suspended  without  pay,  effective  9 Feb  01,
pending a final adjudication of her  security  clearance  by  WHS/CAF.
She was advised of her appeal rights.

Her attorney rebutted the suspension on 8 Feb 01.  However,  on  9 Feb
01, the applicant was indefinitely suspended  without  pay  pending  a
final decision by WHS/CAF.

The applicant’s counsel provided a response to the WHS//CAF on  12 Feb
01.  He contended that, while on the surface questions  regarding  his
client’s judgment and reliability could be reasonably inferred to have
existed at  the  time,  it  did  not  rise  to  the  level  justifying
revocation of her security clearance.  The underlying  conditions  had
since discontinued and there was no evidence she acted in  any  manner
other than with competency  and  reasonableness  during  her  time  of
employment.

The applicant apparently submitted a petition  to  the  Merit  Systems
Protection Board  (MSPB).  On  14 Feb  01,  the  administrative  judge
directed DISA and the  applicant  to  discuss  the  possibility  of  a
settlement.

On 3 Apr 01, WHS/CAF  advised  the  applicant  they  had  revoked  her
eligibility for access to classified information and/or occupancy of a
sensitive position, citing their 22 Dec 00 SOR.  The letter  discussed
the failure of the applicant’s selected psychiatrist  to  provide  the
requested  medical/psychiatric  evaluation,  questioned  her   current
declared willingness to undergo additional sessions and/or testing and
her attorney’s assurance of her cooperation.  As her attorney had  not
provided  information  or  evidence  to  sufficiently   mitigate   the
existence of a condition that may impair her judgment and reliability,
concern  regarding  this  issue  continued.   WHS/CAF  believed   they
displayed an extraordinary effort to work with her, her  psychiatrist,
and her attorney to obtain information  needed  to  make  an  informed
adjudication.   However,  as  her  attorney  had  not   provided   any
information or evidence that mitigated her failure to  cooperate  with
the security  process,  her  personal  conduct  remained  of  security
concern.  She was advised of  her  rights  to  appeal  the  Letter  of
Revocation (LOR).

On 22 May 01, the applicant made  a  personal  appearance  before  the
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA).

On 29 Nov 01, after considering all the available evidence,  the  DOHA
administrative judge rendered  his  recommended  decision.   He  cited
court decisions that entitled DOD to ask employees occupying positions
requiring security clearances questions about their mental  condition.
The federal government could ask an employee in a  sensitive  position
to undergo a medical evaluation of  the  employee’s  mental  condition
when it has information that raises  questions  about  the  employee’s
mental condition.  On the other hand, an employee  has  the  right  to
decline to  answer  such  questions  or  to  undergo  such  a  medical
evaluation.  However, the DOD was not compelled to grant or continue a
security clearance for a person who declines to provide (or refuses to
authorize others to provide) relevant and material information  sought
in connection  with  a  determination  as  to  the  person’s  security
eligibility.  The judge stated a person’s right to refuse  to  provide
(or to authorize others to provide) relevant and material  information
does not translate into a right to get or keep a  security  clearance.
The same principle applies if a person declines to undergo  a  medical
or psychiatric evaluation  requested  by  the  federal  government  in
connection  with  a  determination  as  to   the   person’s   security
eligibility.  Furthermore, these legal  principles  apply  even  if  a
person refuses to cooperate based on advice of an attorney.  The judge
concluded the applicant engaged in a pattern of  action  and  inaction
that impeded the ability of WHS/CAF to obtain  relevant  and  material
information reasonably necessary to make a security  determination  in
her case.  The applicant was not mentally incompetent  merely  because
she has been diagnosed with Delusional Disorder, Persecutory Type, and
Paranoid Personality Traits.  Her prognosis is poor because she lacked
insight into her mental illness and did not want to see treatment  for
it.  The judge determined it was not clearly consistent with  national
security interests to  grant  or  continue  the  applicant’s  security
clearance or her assignment to sensitive duties.

On 28 Mar 02, the WHS Clearance Appeal Board  denied  the  applicant’s
appeal to overturn  the  revocation  of  her  security  clearance  and
eligibility to occupy sensitive positions.  On  18 Jul  02,  DISA/DTIC
notified the applicant that she would be removed from Federal  service
effective 26 Jul 02.  She was advised of her right to  appeal  to  the
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) or grieve the action  under  the
Labor Management Agreement, but not both.

On 2 Apr 03, the Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)  denied  the
applicant’s claim for  service  connection  for  delusional  disorder,
persecutory type.  The DVA disagreed with the  LOD  determination  and
instead  concluded  that,  based  on  the   available   records,   the
applicant’s symptoms started in Feb 98 while she was  a  civilian  and
that her delusional disorder clearly existed prior to her active  duty
and was not aggravated by her active duty.

On  23 Apr  03,  the  Office  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force,
Legislative  Liaison  (SAF/LLI)  responded  to  an  inquiry  from  the
applicant’s  Senator.   SAF/LLI  advised  any  psychotic  episode  was
disqualifying for continued military service, in accordance  with  AFI
48-123.  The Air Force accomplished an informal LOD determination  and
concluded the applicant’s psychotic episode while on  active  duty  in
1999 was in the LOD.  The MEB is the appropriate administrative action
for a Reserve component  member  who  has  a  medically  disqualifying
condition found to have occurred in the LOD, and is a precondition  to
disability evaluation.  The Air Force apparently  did  not  accomplish
the MEB and the information  currently  available  does  not  indicate
clearly why this was not done.  The applicant was advised to appeal to
the AFBCMR since she was now retired awaiting retirement  pay  at  age
60.

On 21 Mar 05, the applicant submitted a complaint to the DOD Inspector
General (DOD/IG), Office of Military Reprisal Investigations, alleging
she was referred to a mental health evaluation in 1998 in reprisal for
providing a statement to Defense investigators in Mar 98.  However, on
23 May  05,  the  DOD/IG  determined  the  applicant’s   whistleblower
complaint was not filed within 60 days of notification of  unfavorable
personnel action as required by Title 10, USC, Section 1034.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial.   Although  it  is
within the Board’s purview  to  grant  a  disability  separation,  the
evidence of record does not support granting this relief.  The Medical
Consultant provides details  regarding  the  applicant’s  medical  and
personnel circumstances.  The Medical Consultant notes  that,  at  the
time the applicant submitted her retirement request, effective  30 Jun
99, she was undergoing mental  health  evaluation  for  a  history  of
delusional thinking that dated  at  least  as  far  back  as  Feb  98.
Although the applicant  had  initiated  voluntary  length  of  service
retirement before formal initiation of disability evaluation,  an  LOD
determination had appropriately been initiated and completed.  The LOD
determination form was reviewed and  completed  by  competent  medical
authority (psychiatrist), who indicated  the  applicant  was  mentally
responsible.  Important to this case, AFI 36-2910 indicates that  when
the  medical  authority  (treating  or  reviewing   medical   officer)
concludes the disease or illness EPTS, the LOD  determination  is  not
applicable  and  further  review  and  processing  is  not   required.
Nevertheless, the LOD form was  reviewed  by  the  applicant’s  direct
supervisor and a legal reviewer, both of whom recommended  her  mental
condition  be  found  in  the  LOD.   The  AFBCMR  Medical  Consultant
concluded there is clear evidence the applicant’s delusional  disorder
existed prior to entry into  extended  active  duty  and  no  evidence
military service aggravated her condition beyond the natural course of
the condition.  Evidence of occupational function while on active duty
shows she performed her duties well and  continued  to  satisfactorily
perform her civilian occupation  following  retirement  from  the  Air
Force Reserves.  If she had undergone  disability  processing,  it  is
likely the physical evaluation board (PEB) would  have  concluded  her
condition was unfitting, EPTS, and was not permanently  aggravated  by
military service.  Independent review of clinical  information  by  an
Air Force psychiatry consultant also concluded the evidence  indicated
the condition existed prior to entering extended active duty in Apr 98
and  was  not  aggravated  beyond  the  natural  progression  of   the
condition.  This psychiatry consultant also concluded the  applicant’s
decision to retire rather than enter the disability evaluation  system
(DES) was rational and not related to her Delusional  Disorder  beyond
her rational desire to avoid loss  of  her  security  clearance.   The
Consultant notes the applicant had requested  and  been  approved  for
voluntary retirement from the Reserves, effective 30 Jun 99.  By  law,
enlisted members may only be placed on medical hold status  to  retain
them in service beyond a  scheduled  date  of  retirement  with  their
consent.  While there  may  have  been  an  error  in  processing  her
voluntary retirement request in the routine prescribed manner, due  in
part to the applicant’s conduct and motivation, clearly she was intent
on avoiding disability evaluation and would have waived retention  for
an MEB if she  had  been  referred  for  medical  evaluation  IAW  the
retirement instruction.  Proper processing  that  included  disability
evaluation would most likely have had the same outcome and  no  change
in the records is warranted.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ USAF/JAA recommends denial, having considered the issues raised  by
the AFBCMR Medical Consultant regarding the proper processing  of  the
applicant’s retirement  and  transfer  to  the  Retired  Reserves  and
concluded that her request to retire was  expeditiously  processed  at
her request.  After her mental condition was  found  not  in  the  LOD
because it existed prior to entering extended active service, she  was
determined not  worldwide  qualified,  and  medical  personnel  wanted
additional evaluations done, the applicant decided to seek retirement.
 Through her actions she purposely and knowingly waived any additional
medical processing.  There is a presumption of regularity on the  part
of the government in processing these types  of  matters.   Therefore,
denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 16 Mar 06 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 she should be processed through  the  Disability  Evaluation
System, awarded a medical discharge/retirement, or afforded any  other
relief  stated  or  implied  in  her  application.   The   applicant’s
contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these  assertions,
in  and  by  themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override   the
available evidence of record or the rationale provided by  the  AFBCMR
Medical Consultant and HQ USAF/JAA.  The applicant’s disorder  clearly
EPTS and was not aggravated beyond its natural progression by military
service.  Her decision  to  retire  rather  than  enter  the  DES  was
rational and not related to her disorder beyond her normal  desire  to
avoid the loss of her security  clearance.   Further,  DES  processing
would likely have found her disorder EPTS without service aggravation,
and she would have been transferred to the Retired  Reserve  to  await
retired pay at age 60.  We therefore adopt the rationale and  findings
expressed by the advisory authors as the basis for our  decision  that
the applicant has not sustained her burden of having  suffered  either
an error or an injustice.

4.    We also  noted  the  applicant  asserts  she  made  a  protected
disclosure, was the victim of reprisal, and therefore warrants  relief
under the provisions of Title  10,  USC,  Section  1034,  and  related
governing  directives.   On  23 May  05,  the  DOD/IG  determined  the
applicant’s whistleblower complaint was not filed within  60  days  of
notification  of  unfavorable   personnel   action.    After   careful
consideration, we conclude the applicant did not
make a protected disclosure and was not the victim  of  reprisal.   We
therefore find no compelling  basis  to  recommend  relief  under  the
provisions of Title 10, USC, Section 1034.  In view of the  above  and
absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we  conclude  this  appeal
should be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

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 11 May 2006 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Donna Jonkoff, Member
                 Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member

_________________________________________________________________

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-00877 was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149s (2), dated 20 Feb & 1 Apr 05,
                       w/atchs, and Supplemental Letter, dated
                       10 Aug 05, w/atchs.
  Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
  Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 15 Feb 06.
  Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ USAF/JAA, dated 10 Mar 06.
  Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 Mar 06.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair