RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02610
            INDEX CODES:  100.06, 110.02
                              111.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  21 FEB 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to  one  that  would
allow his reentry in the Air Force, with a reinstatement date of 2 Feb
05 and all back pay and allowances.

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 2 Jan 05 be  voided  and
removed from his records.

His records be corrected to reflect he was authorized separation pay.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was wrongfully misdiagnosed for the purpose of his discharge.

The contested EPR was unjust in that  it  was  written  by  the  wrong
evaluator.

He was denied severance pay even though the governing regulations  and
instructions authorized him severance pay.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement,
extracts from his military  personnel  records,  and  other  documents
associated with the matters under review.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was honorably discharged on 2 Feb 05 under the provisions of
AFI 36-3208 (Completion of Required Active Service) in  the  grade  of
technical sergeant.  He was credited with 15 years, 5 months,  and  17
days of  active  service.   He  was  assigned  an  separation  program
designator (SPD) code of KBK and an RE code of  2G  (Participating  in
Track 4 or 5 of the Substance Abuse Reorientation and Treatment (SART)
program for drugs, or has failed to complete Track 4).

Applicant's EPR profile since 1995 follows:

     PERIOD ENDING                            EVALUATION

            1 May 95   5
            1 May 96   5
            1 May 97   5
            1 May 98   5
            1 May 99   5
      25 Apr 00  5
      25 Apr 01  5
      25 Apr 02  5
            2 Jan 03   5
            2 Jan 04   5
  *         2 Jan 05   4

* Contested report.

The remaining  relevant  facts  pertaining  to  this  application  are
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate  offices  of  the
Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial noting the applicant received an  RE code
of 2G.  The applicant was referred  to  the  Alcohol  and  Drug  Abuse
Prevention and Treatment (ADAPT) Program, following  a  positive  drug
test for amphetamines in Aug 03.  He then  was  evaluated  and  placed
into the Substance Awareness Seminar, which he completed on 21 Oct 03.
 In Nov 03, the applicant had a second positive amphetamine drug test,
but was not referred to ADAPT at that time due to a medical  decision.
He was referred to the ADAPT  program  again  in  Aug  04,  due  to  a
positive drug test for amphetamines.  At this time, he  was  diagnosed
with amphetamine abuse,  secondary  to  him  admitting  to  using  the
prescribed drug inappropriately.  On or about 18 Oct 04, the applicant
was sent to an intensive outpatient treatment program.   On  or  about
10 Nov 04, the applicant completed his  intensive  treatment  and  was
transitioned back to the ADAPT program.  The  applicant  continued  in
the ADAPT program until 26 Jan 05, at  which  time  a  treatment  team
meeting was held to discuss the applicant’s  lack  of  progress.   The
treatment team felt as though  they  had  offered  the  applicant  the
appropriate resources to assist him.  On  or  about  27  Jan  05,  the
applicant was notified that he had chosen not to follow the  mandatory
guidelines, so was considered a program failure.  In  accordance  with
the governing instruction, individuals who  have  been  determined  as
failing the ADAPT  program  would  be  considered  for  administrative
separation by their commander.  Since the applicant failed to complete
Track 4 of the ADAPT program,  he  was  ineligible  to  extend  and/or
reenlist  in  the  Regular  Air  Force.   In  AFPC/DPPAE’s  view,  the
applicant’s RE code  correctly  reflects  his  failure  in  the  ADAPT
program.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPP recommends approval of the applicant’s request to  void  his
EPR closing 2 Feb 05.  They indicated that based on the  documentation
provided, it was clear the rater on the report, was not the rater  for
the reporting period.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPRS  recommends   denial   indicating   that   based   on   the
documentation on file in the applicant’s records, his  separation  was
consistent with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the
discharge regulation, and  that  his  separation  code  and  narrative
reason for separation were correct.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/DPPPWB indicated that should the Board void the contested report,
there would be no promotion impact as that report was  never  used  in
the promotion process before the applicant’s discharge.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory  opinions  and  furnished  a  lengthy,
detailed response.  In his view, only one of the  offices  of  primary
responsibility (OPRs) took time to examine the submitted evidence.  He
has submitted documentation which reveals that the medication  he  was
taken  was  legally  prescribed.   He  believes  the  problem  is  the
stigmatism attached to methamphetamine, and that it’s hard  t  explain
to others and expect them to understand  that  drugs  and  medications
affect people differently.  In his response, he  wants  to  point  out
some of the truths and half-truths in the advisory opinions.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Medical Consultant recommends  denial  noting  the  applicant  was
unable to reenlist because of an RE code indicating participation in a
drug/alcohol  rehabilitation  program.   According  to   the   Medical
Consultant, the diagnosis had the concurrence of the  ADAPT  treatment
team as well as the intensive outpatient rehabilitation providers  and
is supported by the evidence of record.  The  documented  patterns  of
care seeking and medication use and lack of cooperation with the ADAPT
program, even if he disagreed with the diagnosis, is consistent with a
drug abuse problem.  The applicant’s documented failure  to  cooperate
with the evaluation and treatment of his  abuse/misuse  of  prescribed
amphetamines  and  associated  behaviors  formed  the  basis  of   his
treatment program failure.  An RE code that  barred  reenlistment  was
assigned during participation in the rehabilitation program and  could
not be  changed  when  he  failed  the  rehabilitation  program.   The
applicant's  Air  Force  career   was   contingent   upon   successful
participation and completion of the rehabilitation program.  He failed
to do so.  The diagnosis of drug abuse is supported by the evidence of
record.

In the Medical Consultant’s view, the action and disposition  in  this
case were proper and equitable reflecting compliance  with  Air  Force
directives that implement the law, and that no change in  the  records
is warranted.

A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is  at  Exhibit
I.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion from  the  Medical  Consultant
and furnished another detailed response.   Applicant  indicated  that,
for the most part, the Medical Consultant just echoed what was written
in his Life Skill  records,  and  that  he  made  a  number  of  false
statements.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit K.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error  or  injustice.   Having  carefully  reviewed  this
application, we agree with the recommendation of AFPC/DPPP  and  adopt
the rationale presented  as  the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the
applicant has been the victim of an error or  an  injustice  regarding
the EPR closing 2 Jan 05.  In this  respect,  we  note  the  contested
report was not prepared by the appropriate  rater.   In  view  of  the
foregoing, we recommend the  applicant’s  EPR  closing  2  Jan  05  be
declared void and removed from his records.

4.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice concerning the applicant’s request
that his RE code be changed to one that would allow his reentry in the
Air Force, with a reinstatement date of 2 Feb 05 and all back pay  and
allowances.   The  applicant's  complete  submission  was   thoroughly
reviewed and his contentions were duly noted.  However, we do not find
the applicant’s assertions or the documentation presented  in  support
of his  appeal  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override  the  rationale
provided by the Medical Consultant.  We note that the Secretary of the
Air Force has statutory authority to promulgate rules and  regulations
governing the administration of the Air Force.   In  the  exercise  of
that authority, the Secretary has determined  that  members  separated
from the Air Force would be furnished an RE code predicated  upon  the
quality of their service and circumstances of their  separation.   The
evidence of record indicates the applicant failed to complete Track  4
of the ADAPT program.  As a result, he was  ineligible  to  extend  or
reenlist in the Air Force.  Subsequently, the applicant was  honorably
discharged upon completion of his required active service and assigned
an RE code of 2G.  It appears the RE code was  appropriately  assigned
and accurately reflected the circumstances of his separation, and,  we
find no evidence to indicate the assigned RE code was  in  error.   In
view of the foregoing, and in the absence of  sufficient  evidence  to
the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to recommend  favorable
action on the applicant’s request.

5.  We took note of the  applicant’s  assertion  that  he  was  denied
separation  pay  upon  his  separation.   However,  a  review  of  the
applicant’s  records  revealed  he  received  an  SPD  code   of   KBK
(Completion  of  Required  Active  Service).   No  evidence  has  been
presented which would lead us to believe the applicant’s SPD code  was
erroneous, or that he was authorized separation pay based on  his  SPD
code.  Accordingly, we find no basis to act favorably on  his  request
for separation pay.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating  to  APPLICANT,  be  corrected  to  show  that  the  Enlisted
Performance Report, AF IMT 910, rendered  for  the  period  3  Jan  04
through 2 Jan 05 be declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-02610 in Executive Session on 26 Oct 06, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
      Mr. Todd L. Schafer, Member
      Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Aug 05, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 12 Sep 05.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 24 Oct 05.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 28 Oct 05.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 4 Nov 05.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Nov 05.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, applicant, undated, w/atchs.
     Exhibit I.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 11 Sep 06.
     Exhibit J.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Sep 06.
     Exhibit K.  Letter, applicant, undated, w/atchs.




                                   MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                   Panel Chair






AFBCMR BC-2005-02610




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to , be corrected to show that the Enlisted Performance
Report, AF IMT 910, rendered for the period 3 January 2004 through 2
January 2005 be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his
records.







    JOE G. LINEBERGER

    Director

    Air Force Review Boards Agency