RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03606
                                        INDEX CODE:  128.05
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX         COUNSEL:  NONE

                                        HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  22 May 2007


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her narrative reason for discharge be corrected.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her narrative reason for separation is erroneous and unjust,  in  that,  she
was injured while on active duty and filed for medical  compensation  before
being discharged.

In support of her application, the applicant submits a copy of her  DD  Form
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 11 April 1979 at the  age
of 22.  She was progressively promoted to the grade of  airman  first  class
(E-3) effective and with a date of rank of 11 April 1980.  She  was  trained
and served as a pharmacy specialist.  She received four  airman  performance
reports from the period 11 April 1979 through 30 August  1981  with  ratings
of 9, 9, 6, and 4.

On 31 August 1981, the applicant was notified of her commander’s  intent  to
recommend she be discharged with  a  general  (under  honorable  conditions)
characterization of service for  frequent  involvement  of  a  discreditable
nature with military authorities.   The  specific  reasons  cited  were  her
apathetic attitude toward her Air Force  duties  and  responsibilities,  her
continued failure to report to her duty section on time,  and  her  downward
duty performance as evidenced by the following:

      a. On 9 October 1980 – Counseled for insubordination and  leaving  her
duty section without permission.


      b. On 24 October 1980 – Received  a  Letter  of  Reprimand  (LOR)  for
failure to obey a lawful order.


      c. On 9 January 1981 - Received an Article 15 for violation of Article
86, failure to return to her duty section  after  lunch  break.   Punishment
received was reduction  in  grade  to  airman  (suspended  six  months)  and
forfeiture of $50 of pay.


      d. On 25 February 1981 - Counseled for returning one  hour  late  from
lunch without permission.


      e. On 3 March 1981 - Vacation of suspended punishment for  failure  to
go on 19 and 25 February 1981.  Demotion to airman was imposed.


      f. On 26 March 1981 - Counseled for  departing  duty  section  without
permission.


      g. On 30 July 1981 - Received a Letter of Counseling  for  failure  to
attend a mandatory meeting for dormitory residents.


      h. On 5 August 1981 - Received an Article 15 for violation of  Article
86, returning one hour  late  from  lunch  without  permission.   Punishment
received was reduction in grade to airman and forfeiture of $75 of pay.


      i. On 14 August 1981 - Received a LOR for failure  to  obey  a  lawful
order.


      j. Numerous oral and written counseling’s, in addition to those listed
above, for minor incidents of being late for work and for failing to  remain
at her duty location.


The applicant acknowledged receipt of her commander’s intent and waived  her
right to submit statements in her own behalf.   On  18 September  1981,  the
discharge case file was found to be legally sufficient by  the  Staff  Judge
Advocate.  On 22  September  1981,  the  discharge  authority  approved  the
discharge  under  the  provisions  of  AFM  39-12,  chapter  2,  section  B,
paragraph 2-15a and directed the applicant be discharged  without  probation
or rehabilitation.

The applicant was separated with  a  general  (under  honorable  conditions)
discharge effective 25 September 1981.  She had served  2  years,  5  months
and 15 days on active duty.

Subsequent to her  discharge,  the  applicant  requested  a  change  of  her
reenlistment eligibility code which was denied by the  Air  Force  Personnel
Board on 5 January 1983, which cited “an unacceptable  behavior  pattern,  a
lack of initiative, little self-discipline, and a disregard for  authority.”


Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) documentation, dated  4 December  1984,
indicates the applicant was awarded entitlement to  service  connection  for
bilateral pes planus aggravated by active service with an evaluation  of  10
percent effective 26 September 1981.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the  records
is warranted.  The BCMR Medical Consultant states the  applicant  was  found
by a specialty evaluation to  have  a  preexisting  medical  condition  that
became and remained symptomatic while serving  on  active  duty.   Specialty
evaluation was completed and a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) found her  fit
for world wide duty and returned her to duty  in  her  Air  Force  Specialty
Code,  without  recommendation  for  cross-training.   She  was  permanently
profiled L2, with  a  recommendation  of  limited  standing.   She  was  not
recommended for discharge for a  medical  condition.   Concurrent  with  her
medical evaluation and treatment, she received multiple counseling  sessions
and subsequent non-judicial punishments for  failure  to  go  (leaving  work
early without permission, returning late from lunch without permission,  and
not  reporting  for  work).   Based  on  her  recurring  pattern  of   minor
misconduct, disregard for counseling, and pattern  of  insubordination,  she
was recommended for administrative discharge and receipt of a general  under
honorable conditions discharge certificate.  In reconstructing the  timeline
of duty performance deficiencies and episodes of medical illness,  there  is
no relationship noted between the two.   There  is  no  basis  on  which  to
attribute the deterioration in duty  performance  to  a  medical  condition.
The fact the applicant has been granted service  connected  disability  from
the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) does not entitle her to  Air  Force
disability compensation.

It is the BCMR Medical Consultant’s opinion that action and  disposition  in
this case were proper and equitable reflecting  compliance  with  Air  Force
directives that implement the law.

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant  on  4
October 2006 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 an error or injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case and do not  find  that
it supports a determination that  the  applicant  was  improperly  separated
from active duty in 1981.  Neither  does  the  record  reveal  nor  has  the
applicant provided any evidence that would lead us to believe that  she  was
physically unfit within the  meaning  of  the  governing  regulation,  which
implements the law.  The narrative reason for discharge which was issued  at
the  time  of   the   applicant’s   separation   accurately   reflects   the
circumstances of her separation and we do not find it  to  be  in  error  or
unjust.  In view of the  above  and  absent  persuasive  evidence  that  the
applicant was denied rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations  were
not followed, or appropriate standards were not applied, we agree  with  the
opinion  and  recommendation  of   the   Air   Force   office   of   primary
responsibility and  adopt  its  rationale  as  our  finding  in  this  case.
Accordingly, the applicant’s request is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 5 December 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Panel Chair
            Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
            Ms. Glenda H. Scheiner, Member


The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-2005-03606
was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Oct 05, w/atch.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 4 Oct 06.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Oct 06.




                                  MICHAEL V. BARBINO
                                                   Panel Chair