RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00766
            INDEX CODE:  110.00, 100.03
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  16 SEPTEMBER 2007


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  Airman  Performance  Reports  (APRs)  for  the   periods   ending
29 September 1988 and 6 June  1988  be  voided  and  his  reenlistment
eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow him to reenlist in  the  Air
Force.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His supervisor's were out to get him and he was railroaded out of  the
service.  The contested APRs were written so his commander would  deny
him reenlistment.  He believes the APRs were an unfair  evaluation  of
his performance and contained inaccurate information.  His APR  ending
6 June 1988, states he was unable to demonstrate leadership abilities;
however, he was not put in a leadership  role.   He  was  planning  on
making the Air Force a career.

In support of his request, applicant provides  a  personal  statement,
copies  of  his  Enlisted  Evaluation   Reports,   a   copy   of   the
Administrative  Discharge  Board  Proceedings  and   other   documents
relating to his discharge.  The applicant’s complete submission,  with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 27 August 1981, the applicant enlisted in the  Regular  Air  Force
and was progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of  staff  sergeant.
Since his promotion to staff sergeant, he  received  three  AF  Forms
910, TSgt, SSgt and Sgt Performance Reports, closing 24 January 1988,
6 June 1988* and 29 September 1988*, in which his overall evaluations
were 7, 5, and 5 respectively (9 being the highest rating) *  Denotes
referral report.

On 3 November 1988, the applicant’s supervisor  prepared  an  AF  Form
418,    Selective    Reenlistment/Noncommissioned    Officer    Status
Consideration,  and  recommended  that  he   not   be   selected   for
reenlistment.  The  specific  reason  for  his  action  was  that  the
applicant  did   not   demonstrate   the   ability   to   handle   NCO
responsibilities.   He  had  poor  communicative  skills,  used   poor
judgment  in  handling  most  situations  and  did  not  possess   the
leadership traits needed to handle and lead  people.    On  this  same
date,  the  applicant’s   section   commander   concurred   with   the
recommendation and rendered him ineligible for reenlistment.

On 16 September 1988,  the  attending  staff  psychiatrist  report  of
evaluation indicated the applicant was unsuitable for further military
service due to Paranoid Personality Disorder.   Prompt  administrative
separation from the Air Force was recommended.

On 10 November 1988, the applicant received notification that  he  was
being recommended for discharge due to having a mental condition  that
interfered with military service, specifically a Paranoid  Personality
Disorder.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the  notification  on
that same date and consulted military legal counsel.   On  13  January
1989, an  Administrative  Discharge  Board  approved  the  applicant's
discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Section B,  paragraph  5-
11, without probation and rehabilitation.  He was honorably discharged
on 1 February 1989 under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Conditions  that
interfere with Military Service).  He  had  completed  a  total  of  7
years, 5 months and 5 days of active service.   He received an RE Code
of "2X" (First-term, second-term, or career airman considered but  not
selected for reenlistment under the SRP).

On 16 March 1990, the Airman Actions Branch corrected the DD Form 214,
to reflect the RE Code 2C "Involuntarily Separated with  an  Honorable
Discharge."

On 20 June 1990, the AFBCMR considered and denied  a  request  by  the
applicant that his RE code be changed.  For an accounting of the facts
and  circumstances  surrounding  the  applicant’s  service,  and,  the
Board’s consideration of the appeal, see the Record of Proceedings  at
Exhibit B.

In March 1999, the applicant requested his involuntary  administrative
discharge be changed to omit any reference to his Paranoid Personality
Disorder.  Upon examination of his request, the Air  Force  Office  of
Primary Responsibility verified that the applicant was never  referred
to or considered  by  the  Air  Force  Disability  Evaluation  System.
Therefore, it was recommended that his records be corrected to reflect
he  was  found  unfit  by  reason  of  physical  disability,  paranoid
schizophrenia, with a 10 percent disability rating.  On 3 August 1999,
the AFBCMR directed the applicant's records be corrected to reflect he
was  found  unfit  to  perform  his  duties  by  reason  of   physical
disability;  paranoid  schizophrenia  with  a  10  percent  disability
rating.

_________________________________________________________________


AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial.  DPPPEP states the applicant has failed
to provide supporting  documents  to  show  either  of  the  contested
reports is inaccurate.   DPPPEP  advises  that  as  a  noncommissioned
officer in the Air Force, the applicant was automatically placed in  a
leadership role against his peers.  This does not necessarily mean the
applicant had to supervise to be a leader.  The  AFPC/DPPPEP  complete
evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial.  DPPAE found no evidence of an error  or
injustice that the RE code was incorrect or should  be  changed.   The
AFPC/DPPAE complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were sent to the applicant  on  26
May 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 error or injustice.  After thoroughly  reviewing  the
documentation submitted with this appeal, we are  not  persuaded  that
the contested reports are an inaccurate assessment of the  applicant's
performance during the contested time period.  The  applicant  asserts
that the evaluations were an inaccurate evaluation of his  performance
and were written so he would  be  denied  reenlistment;  however,  the
Board finds insufficient documentation  to  support  this  contention.
Other than  his  own  self-supportive  statements,  we  have  seen  no
evidence by the applicant which would lead  us  to  believe  that  the
contested reports were technically flawed, that the rater’s evaluation
was coerced, or that his evaluators based their assessments on factors
other than his duty performance  during  the  period  covered  by  the
reports.  In regard to the applicant's request that  his  RE  code  be
changed, the applicant has not provided  persuasive  evidence  showing
the  information  in  the  discharge  case  file  was  erroneous,  his
substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused  their
discretionary authority.  The RE code which was issued at the time  of
the applicant’s separation accurately reflects  the  circumstances  of
his separation and we do not find this code to be in error or  unjust.
Therefore, we agree with the opinion and  recommendation  of  the  Air
Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as  the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of
an error or injustice.  Accordingly, we find  no  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 Docket  Number  BC-2005-
00766 in Executive Session on 22 August 2006, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Robert H. Altman, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr, Member
                  Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2006-
00766 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Oct 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Record of Proceedings, dated 20 Jun 90,
               w/exhibits.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 19 Apr 06.
   Exhibit D.  Letter AFPC/DPPAE, dated 3 May 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 May 06.




                                   ROBERT H. ALTMAN
                                   Panel Chair