RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02554
				INDEX CODE:  108.00
	APPLICANT	COUNSEL:  None

	SSN		HEARING DESIRED:  No
 
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be set aside and he receive a disability discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have received a disability discharge due to curvature of the spine.

He further states that since leaving the Air Force he has become an electrician and has done a great deal of government contracts.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on 20 March 1979 for a period of four (4) years.

On 30 April 1980, applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend he be administratively discharged from the Air Force in accordance with AFM 39-12, paragraph 2-4b.

The commander stated the following reasons for the proposed discharge:

		a.  On 2 October 1979, the applicant received a letter of counseling (LOC) for failure to go.

		b.  The  applicant  was  placed  on the control  roster  on 25 January 1980 for financial irresponsibility.

		c.  On 15 March 1980, an Incident Complaint Report was accomplished due to the applicant’s failure to pay a civilian taxi driver for services rendered.

		d.  Applicant received an Article 15 on 21 March 1980 for writing bad checks with the intent to defraud.

		e.  The applicant uttered a total of 44 bad checks to the Base Exchange, club, the audio center, the Rod and Gun Club, and a civilian insurance firm.

		f.  The applicant was referred to Mental Health based on his misconduct.  On 21 April 1980, Mental Health diagnosed the applicant as having a Personality Disorder, mixed type manifested by impulsivity, depression and poor judgment, and problem drinking.

The commander advised the applicant that he was recommending he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.  The commander advised that the final decision in his case and the type of discharge rested with the discharge authority.  The commander further advised that upon receipt of the documented case, the commander exercising court-martial jurisdiction will appoint an evaluation officer who will review the applicant’s case file.  The evaluation officer will make arrangements for a personal interview at which time the applicant would be counseled regarding his case.  At this time the applicant would be given the opportunity to submit a rebuttal and make statements in his own behalf.  The applicant was advised that legal counsel had been obtained to assist him.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge that both he and the First Sergeant had counseled the applicant in an attempt to improve his judgment and behavior; he did not alter his behavior and continually failed to meet acceptable standard.  The commander did not recommend probation and rehabilitation.

On 9 May 1980, the general court-martial authority appointed an evaluation officer to consider the applicant’s case.  On 20 May 1980, the evaluation officer indicated that he had conducted the evaluation between 12-20 May 1980.  He conducted a personal interview with the applicant, advised him regarding the nature of the action and counseled him concerning it; advised him of his right to submit a rebuttal and make statements in his own behalf and he (evaluation officer) would assist him in the preparation of these statements; and lastly, he advised the applicant that if he chose not to submit such statements, he must acknowledge in writing that he elected to waive this right.  The evaluation officer recommended, after receiving the case, that the applicant be discharged with a general discharge, and not be considered for rehabilitation.

A legal review was conducted on 22 May 1980 in which the staff judge advocate recommended the applicant be discharged with a general discharge certificate and that probation and rehabilitation not be offered.

During the timeframe in question the applicant had only one airman performance report (APR) with an overall rating of six (6).

The applicant was discharged on 6 June 1980, in the grade of airman basic, with a General Discharge certificate, in accordance with AFM 39-12, Chapter 2.  He served a total 1 year, 2 months and 17 days of active duty service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

The Chief, Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, states a review of the applicant’s records finds no evidence of problems with his spine or any other condition that would have required the applicant to be processed through the disability evaluation system.  The Medical Consultant further states the action and disposition of the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable and in compliance with Air Force directives and law.  The Medical Consultant, based on the evidence presented, recommends denying the applicant’s request.

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

HQ AFPC/DPPD states the purpose of the disability evaluation system (DES) is to maintain a fit and vital force by separating or retiring members who are unable to perform the duties of their office, grade, rank or rating.  The members who are separated or retired for reason of a physical disability may be eligible for certain disability compensation.  The Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) determines if the servicemember should be processed through the DES when a member is determined to be disqualified for continued military service.  The medical treatment facility that provides health care to the sevicemember makes the decision whether or not to conduct an MEB.

Under the provisions of Title 38, USC, servicemembers who incur service-connected medical conditions while on active duty are authorized compensation and treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).  The DVA is chartered to provide continual medical care for veterans once they leave active duty.  Under Title 38, USC, the DVA may increase or decrease a member’s disability rating based on the seriousness of the medical condition throughout his or her life span.  DPPD concurs with the Medical Consultant’s deposition of the applicant’s case and, based on the evidence submitted, they recommend denying the requested relief (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

On 3 January 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  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 of timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Title 10, USC, Chapter 61 is the federal statue that charges the Service Secretaries with maintaining a fit and vital force.  For an individual to be considered unfit for military service, there must be a medical condition so severe that it prevents performance of any work commensurate with rank and experience.  The evidence of record indicates the applicant was fit and medically qualified for continued military service at the time of his separation.  Furthermore, a review of his service medical records does not indicate that he had problems with his spine or any other medical condition that required him to be processed through the DES.  The records indicated that the applicant has a personality disorder as documented by a mental health evaluation and he abused alcohol.  In this respect, it appears he was involved in a motor vehicle incident wherein he wrecked his own vehicle while intoxicated.  Also, the Board notes that the applicant received an Article 15 for writing 44 bad checks and that he was pending court martial proceedings for failure to pay a civilian taxi driver for services rendered.  Therefore, in view of the totality of circumstances, it appears the discharge was in compliance with the appropriate Air Force regulations in effect at the time.  Thus, 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 02-02554 in Executive Session on 11 February 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 6 Jul 02, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, BCMR, Medical Consultant, dated
				25 Nov 02.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 18 Dec 02.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jan 03.