RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00608
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
                       COUNSEL:  BRUNSWICK COUNTY VSO

                       HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  1 SEP 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to reflect her “well
being and aptitude” and her Narrative Reason for Separation be changed
to read “state of family hardship, not of disability to allow  her  to
reenlist in military service.”

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She is mentally and  physically  apt  to  continue  to  perform  as  a
Munitions Systems professional.  Her capabilities were proven at  Shaw
AFB.  Her RE code at present, is not only  inaccurate,  but  stagnates
her career growth.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 24 February 2000, the applicant enlisted in the Regular  Air  Force
(RegAF) as a sergeant (Sgt) for a period of four years.   Her  records
reflect she had a prior enlistment from 3 February  1993  to  2  March
1998.

On 24 August 2001, the applicant was scheduled  to  deploy  to  Prince
Sultan, AB.  She completed processing for her deployment,  but  failed
to report to the airport for deployment.  The applicant was questioned
and stated she could not deploy because she  was  worried  about  what
would happen to her children during her deployment.   Thereafter,  the
applicant’s commander  determined  that  she  was  mentally  unfit  to
perform her duties and referred her for treatment at the base  clinic.
The applicant after her initial mental health assessment was  referred
to receive in patient care at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.

On 31 August 2001, the applicant was evaluated by a  psychiatrist  and
diagnosed with a delusional disorder, persecutory type  manifested  by
persecutory and paranoid ideation.  A second mental health  evaluation
was conducted on 2 February  2002,  which  confirmed  the  applicant’s
delusional disorder diagnosis.

On 15 February 2002, a Medical Evaluation Board  (MEB)  was  conducted
and also confirmed the applicant’s diagnosis of  delusional  disorder.
They referred the applicant’s case to a Informal  Physical  Evaluation
Board (IPEB).

On 11 March 2002, the IPEB diagnosed  the  applicant  with  delusional
disorder and recommended she be discharged under  other  than  Chapter
16, 10 U.S.C.  The IPEB further  determined  the  applicant  condition
manifested during her break in service.

On 21 March 2002, the applicant waived her right  to  Formal  Physical
Evaluation  Board  (FPEB)  and  concurred  with   the   findings   and
recommendations of the IPEB.

On 25 March 2002, the Secretary of the  Air  Force  Personnel  Council
(SAFPC) directed the applicant be separated from active  duty  service
for a physical disability which existed prior to service.

On 14 May 2002, the applicant was honorably discharged in the grade of
staff sergeant under the provisions of AFI 36-3212, with  a  Narrative
Reason for Separation – Disability existed prior to service, PEB and a
RE code of 2Q which denotes she is ineligible to reenlist.  She served
7 years, 3 months and 21 days of active duty service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPD recommends the requested relief be  denied.   They  state
the preponderance of evidence reflects  that  no  error  or  injustice
occurred during the disability and separation processing.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

HQ  AFPC/JA  recommends  denying  the  application.   They  state  the
application is untimely and the applicant has failed to prove an error
an injustice warranting relief.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluation were forwarded to the applicant and
counsel on 5 May 2006, for review and response.  As of this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinions and  recommendations  of  the  Air
Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the
applicant has failed to sustain  her  burden  that  she  has  suffered
either an error or an injustice.   The  applicant  is  requesting  her
Narrative Reason for Separation and RE code be changed.  Based on  the
documentation  in  the  applicant's  records,  it  appears  that   the
processing of the discharge and the characterization of the  discharge
were appropriate and accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy.
 In regard to the Narrative Reason for Separation and the RE code, the
applicant has not provided any evidence  showing  that  the  Narrative
Reason for Separation and the  assigned  RE  code  were  in  error  or
contrary to the prevailing regulation.  It appears that  the  decision
to separate the applicant was proper based on  her  situation  at  the
time and the Narrative Reason for Separation and RE  code  which  were
issued at the time of her discharge were proper and in compliance with
the appropriate directives  and  accurately  reflected  that  she  was
separated for a disability that existed prior to service.   Therefore,
in the absence of evidence to the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling
basis 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-
2006-00608 in Executive Session on 22 June 2006 under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                 Ms. Glenda H. Scheiner, Member
                 Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Mar 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 28 Mar 06.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 1 May 06.
   Exhibit E.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 May 06.




                                        THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                        Chair