RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02258
                               (CASE 2)
            INDEX CODE:  107.00; 110.02;
                 112.02
            COUNSEL:  AMERICAN LEGION

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE:  22 OCTOBER 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  He be awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) or given direct
promotion;

2.  All information pertaining to his Bomb Range Cleaning Assignment be
added to his performance reports (APRs/EPRs); and,

3.  His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His RE code is holding him back in society.  He does not have a  personality
disorder or a character disorder.  He is now being told he  suffers  from  a
“thought” disorder.  The work he often performed while in  military  service
was often credited to other people.  His congressman  refused  to  represent
him.

In support of the application, the applicant submits a CD  of  photos.   The
applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 8  January  1980  at  the
age of 21 in  the  grade  of  airman  basic  (E-1).   He  was  progressively
promoted to the grade of staff sergeant effective and with a  date  of  rank
of 1 February 1990.

The following  is  a  resume  of  his  Airman/Enlisted  Performance  Reports
(APR/EPRs), commencing with the report closing 7 January 1981:



      PERIOD ENDING    OVERALL EVALUATION

       7 January 1981        8
       7 January 1982        8
       4 June 1982           8
       1 April 1983          8
      25 August 1983         8
      22 March 1984          7
       4 October 1984        7
       4 October 1985        9
       1 March 1986          8
       1 March 1987          8
       1 March 1988          9
       6 February 1989       7
       6 June 1989           9
      17 May 1990            2 (Referral)
      16 August 1990         2 (Referral)

Based on his duty performance and conduct, the applicant was referred  to  a
military medical facility for evaluation on  7  March  1990.   In  a  Mental
Health Evaluation dated  9  April  1990,  the  applicant  was  diagnosed  as
follows:

      Axis I 309.28 – Adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features

      Axis II 301.89 – Personality disorder  not  otherwise  specified  with
dependent and paranoid features

      Axis III – Benign essential tremor exacerbated by current stress

In a follow-up Mental Health  Evaluation  dated  15  May  1990,  the  mental
health examiner indicated that the applicant’s diagnoses were unchanged  and
that the prognosis for the personality disorder was not good.  The  examiner
indicated there was no mental health reason  why  the  applicant  could  not
return to his regular duties, but suggested he  be  observed  to  assure  he
performed his duties in a technically safe manner.

On 12 September 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 for  conditions  that  interfere  with  military  duties.   The
applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and waived his rights  to
a hearing before an administrative discharge board, to consult  counsel  and
to submit statements in  his  own  behalf.   The  discharge  case  file  was
reviewed by the staff judge advocate on 19 November 1990, and found  legally
sufficient.  The staff judge advocate forwarded the discharge case file  for
review to the discharge authority.  The  discharge  authority  approved  the
recommended separation and directed the applicant  be  honorably  discharged
without the offer of probation and rehabilitation.
On  11  December  1990,  the  applicant  was  discharged   under   honorable
conditions under the provisions of  AFR  39-10  (Conditions  That  Interfere
with Military Service – Not Disability – Character & Behavior Disorder)  and
issued an RE code of 2C.  He had served 10 years, 11 months and  4  days  on
active duty.

A similar appeal was considered and denied by the Board on 15 January 1998.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPP recommends denial of the applicant’s requests numbered 1 and  2
above.

DPPP notes applicant provided no documentation such as a  citation,  special
order, certificate, or decoration recommendation that was submitted  by  the
recommending  official  (i.e.  supervisor,  squadron  commander,  etc.)   to
substantiate his claim for the AFCM.

DPPP notes a review of the applicant’s record reveals he was  considered  13
times for promotion to SSgt before his selection  during  cycle  90B5.   The
applicant  assumed  the  rank  of  SSgt  on  1 February  1990  before  being
discharged on 11 December 1990.  Based on his date of rank, he did not  have
sufficient time in grade to be considered for promotion to TSgt  before  his
discharge.  DPPP points out that should the  Board  grant  the  request  for
award  of  the  Commendation  Medal  (worth  3  points),  it  would  not  be
sufficient enough to promote him any sooner to SSgt as he  missed  promotion
during cycles 83B5 through 89B5 by more than 3 points.

DPPP states it is the rater’s ultimate  responsibility  to  determine  which
accomplishments are included on an APR and whether or not  it  is  necessary
to gather additional information from other sources in order  to  render  an
accurate assessment of the individual.  DPPP’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s request number 3 above.

DPPRS states  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  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 is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  for
review and comment on 14 October 2005.  As of this  date,  this  office  has
received no response (Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing  law  or
regulations.

2.  The application was time filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice.  The applicant’s  contentions  are  duly
noted;  however,  after  a  thorough  review  of  the  applicant’s  complete
submission and the available evidence we are not persuaded that he has  been
the victim of an error or injustice.  Other than  his  own  assertions,  the
applicant has provided no documentary  evidence  that  would  establish  his
entitlement to  the  AFCM  award,  his  receipt  of  direct  promotion,  his
performance  reports  being  corrected,  or  his  RE  code  being   changed.
Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the  Air  Force
offices of primary responsibility and adopt their  rationale  as  the  basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim  of  an  error
or an injustice.  In conclusion, we find no basis to recommend granting  the
relief sought in this case.

_________________________________________________________________

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  AFBCMR  BC-2005-02258  in
Executive Session on 9 March 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


           Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
           Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Panel Member
           Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Jul 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPP, dated 28 Sep 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Oct 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Oct 05.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair