RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

      IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03867
            INDEX CODE: 110.00
      XXXXXXX                     COUNSEL:  NONE

                                   HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 23 JUNE 2007

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for  separation  be  changed  from  “conditions  that
interfere with  military  service-not  disability–character  and  behavior
disorder” to “medical discharge”.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While he was working in  a  hangar  at  Myrtle  Beach  South  Carolina  he
detected an odor and noticed other crew members were using a  toxic  spray
known as solid film lubricant.  Afterwards, the applicant states he became
lightheaded and eventually passed out.  Subsequently, he was rushed to the
emergency room on base and states the medical folks could not  revive  him
or diagnose his condition. He was then transported to a civilian  hospital
where he  stopped  breathing,  but  was  revived.   Applicant  states  his
condition has become severe enough to warrant the recent  placement  of  a
pacemaker.

In support of his application, the applicant submits a personal letter.

His complete submission with attachments is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 2 July 1984 in the grade of  airman
basic.  On 27 February 1989, he was notified by his commander that he  was
recommending he be discharged from the Air Force under the  provisions  of
AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen.   The specific reason  for
this action was on 27 February 1989 he was diagnosed as suffering from  an
Occupational Problem and Mixed Personality with  Antisocial  and  Passive-
Aggressive Features.  In addition, it was determined his disorder  was  so
severe it significantly impaired his ability to function in  the  military
environment.  As a result his commander recommended he be discharged  from
the Air Force  with  an  honorable  discharge.   The  discharge  authority
approved the recommendation and on 10 March 1989, he was  discharged  from
the Air  Force  for  conditions  that  interfere  with  military  service,
character and behavior disorder in the grade of senior airman.  He  served
4 years, 8 months and 8 days on active duty.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  states  that  the  discharge  was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements  of  the
discharge regulation.  In addition, the discharge  was  within  the  sound
discretion of the discharge authority.  He did not submit any new evidence
or identify any errors  or  injustices  that  occurred  in  his  discharge
processing.  The applicant did not provide any facts warranting  a  change
to his narrative reason for separation.

The complete DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends  denial.   The  Medical  Consultant
states the applicants mental  health  evaluation  disclosed  a  long  term
pattern of interpersonal difficulties  predating  his  entry  onto  active
duty. The applicant attributes his history of passing  out  leading  to  a
pacemaker placement to an occupational exposure to  solid  film  lubricant
that caused acute illness requiring  hospitalization.   Inquiry  indicated
the  applicant  is  not  in  receipt  of  service   connected   disability
compensation through the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and does not
have a DVA claim file established.  The medical records show  on  4  April
1988 he was brought to the emergency room on base due to severe  headaches
and lethargy/diminished consciousness. Review of service  medical  records
shows care for various conditions but there is no evidence that  any  were
unfitting at the  time  of  separation  or  warranted  referral  into  the
Disability Evaluation System.  There is no evidence the acute  illness  of
April 1988 caused  the  subsequent  problems  related  to  his  personally
disorder that he experienced as evidence of the record shows a pattern  of
similar   problems  preceding  the  April  1988  illness.    The   Medical
Consultant states the action and disposition in this case are  proper  and
equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives  that  implement
the law and therefore he is of the opinion that no change in  the  records
is warranted.

The complete Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on  15
December 2006 for review and comment within 30 days.   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 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; however, we  do  not
find his uncorroborated assertions sufficiently persuasive to override  the
rationale provided by the Air Force.  We see no evidence, which would  lead
us to believe that at the time of  his  separation,  a  physical  condition
existed that would have rendered him  eligible  for  consideration  in  the
disability evaluation system.  Therefore, we agree with  the  opinions  and
recommendation 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 injustice.  Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, 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 BC-2005-03867  in  Executive
Session on 31 January 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Member
                 Ms. Sharon B. Seymour, Member






The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Dec 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Jan 06.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 15 Dec 06.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Dec 06.




            MICHAEL J. MAGLIO
            Panel Chair