RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00261
		INDEX CODE:  
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  24 APRIL 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His type of separation and narrative reason for separation be changed to general.

2.  His rank be restored to Staff Sergeant (SSgt).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He and other noncommissioned (NCO) officers were sexually discriminated against by a female officer in his chain of command.  He requested and was refused a transfer by his commander.  His case is another example of unjust treatment and discrimination by the Air Force.  His NCO status was removed and the Air Force never supported his rights against discrimination.  He has been treated for depression since September 1981. 

In support of the application, the applicant submits his application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States (DD 293).  (Note:  Although the applicant has listed past performance reports, past awards, and VA records as attachments, these items were not included with his application.)
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s discharge case file is incomplete.  The following is the only known information concerning his discharge processing.  On 8 January 1985, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman first class (E-3) at the age of 21 for a period of 4 years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4) effective and with a date of rank of 8 May 1987 and was subsequently appointed as a sergeant (E-4).  At the time of discharge, the applicant had a projected promotion and line number for the grade of Staff Sergeant.  

He received performance reports closing 7 January 1987, 7 January 1987, 31 August 1987, 30 March 1988, and 30 March 1982, in which the overall ratings were “9.”  On his final performance report closing 16 March 1990, he received an overall rating of “1.”

On 1 December 1989, he received a letter of counseling concerning the performance of his duties.

On 24 January 1990, a clinical psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant with DSM-III-R, AXIS I:  Major Depression, and Axis II:  Personality Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified (NOS), manifested by avoidant and schizoid traits.  The examiner indicated that as a result of the diagnoses, the applicant was clearly unsuited for further military service, and if retained on active duty, his behavior would likely create additional management problems for his commander, to the detriment of the U.S. Air Force.  He further recommended prompt administrative separation under provisions of Air Force regulations as the applicant’s condition was not responsive to repetitive corrective measures through medical channels.

On 6 March 1990, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant that he was recommending he be separated from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Conditions That Interfere With Military Service, Character and Behavior Disorder.  On the same date, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification, consulted counsel, and waived his right to submit a statement on his behalf.  The remainder of the discharge case file is not a matter of record.  He was discharged in the grade of senior airman (E-4) on 9 May 1990 with an honorable discharge under the provisions of 39-10 (conditions that interfere with Military service – not disability – character and behavior disorder).  He had served 5 years 4 months and 2 days of active duty service to include 1 year 9 months and 26 days of foreign service. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial of the applicant’s request that his rank of SSgt be restored.  DPPPWB states the applicant was tentatively selected for promotion to SSgt during cycle 90B5 (promotions effective Feb - Jul 90).  He received a promotion sequence number which would have incremented on 1 June 1990; however, he became ineligible for promotion consideration once processing of involuntary separation was initiated.  DPPPWB opines the commander was acting within his authority when he made the decision to recommend the applicant for involuntary discharge.  Additionally, the applicant has not provided any evidence to support his contentions of sexual discrimination.  DPPPWB’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS stated that based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  They also note that the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no facts warranting a change to his narrative reason for separation.  DPPRS’s evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his letter dated 5 April 2005, the applicant reiterates his previous contentions, and requests various personnel documents pertaining to past military and civilian personnel.  The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 warranting changes to the applicant’s type of separation and/or narrative reason for his separation.  There is no indication in the available record the applicant’s discharge was improper or unjust.  After careful consideration of the available evidence, we found no indication that the actions taken to effect his separation was improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the time.  We found no evidence of sexual discrimination as alleged by the applicant.  In regards to his request to restore his rank, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility.  The applicant has provided no evidence with successfully disputes HQ AFPC/DPPPWB’s interpretation of the regulation or showing that he was unjustly treated in regards to his rank at the time of his discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable 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 28 July 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-00261:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Jan 05 w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 11 Mar 05, w/atch.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 29 Mar 05.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Apr 05.
     Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 5 Apr 05.

 
                                  Panel Chair