RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03966

	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.	His general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.	His narrative reason for discharge be changed to medical.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was discharged from the Air Force with no concerns as to his physical or mental problems.

The applicant states that he had a lot of physical, mental, and social problems while he was in the military.  He did not know how to ask for help and no one offered him any help.  Not long after he was discharged, he started having the same problems that he had in the service; however, this time, he had no money for medical help.  The Air Force’s and the DVA’s failure to diagnose and/or treat his herpes has caused him unncessary pain and suffering.  

In support of the appeal, the applicant submits a copy of his Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) medical records, which includes a copy of his service medical record.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on 30 November 1978.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5).

On 31 March 1983, he reenlisted in the RegAF for a period of four years.

On 3 August 1983, the commander notified the applicant of his intent to impose nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for violating Articles 134 and Article 92.  Specifically, for wrongfully possessing marijuana and drug paraphernalia.  After consulting legal counsel, the applicant waived his right to a trial by court-martial and accepted the nonjudicial punishment.  After considering the applicant’s oral submission, on 9 August 1983, the commander determined that he did commit one or more of the alleged offenses and imposed nonjudicial punishment consisting of reduction to the grade of airman first class, forfeiture for $75.00 per month for two months, and 15 consecutive days of extra duty. The applicant did not appeal the punishment.

In a letter, dated 16 September 1983, the commander notified him that he was recommending his administrative discharge for misconduct, i.e., drug abuse.  Specifically, for wrongfully possessing marijuana and drug paraphernalia, for which he received an Article 15.  He acknowledged that military counsel had been made available to him and did not waive his right to an administrative discharge board (ADB).  In a letter, dated 5 October 1983, the applicant waived his right to an ADB contingent upon his receipt of no less than a general discharge.  His waiver was accepted on 4 November 1983.

He underwent a separation physical on 19 September 1983, and was found qualified for worldwide service/separation.

On 16 November 1983, he was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Misconduct - Drug Abuse), with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions).  He completed 4 years, 11 months, and 17 days of active service. 

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated that on the basis of the data furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit F).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted, and states the following:

	a.	Applicant’s service medical record confirms that he experienced considerable difficulty with recurrent peri-anal/peri-rectal abscesses consistent with recurrent pilonidal cysts or hidradentis supportive.

	b.	After his discharge, his recurrent skin and soft tissue infections were diagnosed as hidradentis.  Although this condition had the potential to interfere with duty, his performance reports document excellent duty performance despite this recurring problem.  Hidradentis supportive is currently a diagnosis that requires a review by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) to determine continued fitness for duty but does not automatically render a member unfit leading to disability discharge.

	c.	Applicant’s episode of streptococcal pharyngitis associated Steven’s Johnson Syndrome did not result in any chronic sequelae that impaired his ability to perform his duties.

	d.	There is no evidence of mental disorder while on active duty that would have warranted referral into the disability system.  Symptoms of depressed mood and anxiety are commom in the setting of involuntary separation and are not a reason for disability evaluation.

	e.	The mere presence of a physical defect or condition does not qualify a member for disability retirement or discharge.  It must render the member unfit for duty, and their military career must have been cut short due to the service-connected disability.  In the applicant’s case, his career was cut short by misconduct, not medical problems.  Further, members who are pending separation under provisions that authorize a characterization of service of UOTHC, even if the actual characterization that the member receives is general, are not eligible for referral into the disability evaluation system unless the medical impairment or extenuating circumstances may be the cause of the misconduct.

The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the applicant has failed to provide documentation that an error or injustice occurred at the time of his involuntary administrative discharge generated under the provisions of AFR 39-10.  AFPC/DPPD further recommends the applicant pursue compensation and medical treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for his service-connected medical conditions as authorized under the provisions of Title 38, United States Code.  While the applicant was treated for various medical conditions throughout his military career, the preponderance of evidence does not show his military career was curtailed or shortened as a result of an unfitting medical problem.  His records indicate he was reasonably capable of performing his military duties as a Special Purpose Vehicle Mechanic right up until his release from active duty.  

The AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 16 Jun 2003 for review and response within 30 days.  However, 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 an error or an injustice.  After reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the relief requested should be granted.  The applicant has not established that his commander abused his discretionary authority when initiating discharge action against him.  In regard to his request for a medical discharge, as indicated by the BCMR Medical Consultant, none of the applicant’s medical conditions rendered him unfit for duty, it was his misconduct which caused him to be separated from the service.  Therefore, we agree with the comments and recommendations of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In view of the above findings, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2002-03966 in Executive Session on 17 September 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Dec 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 13 May 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 11 Jun 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Jun 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Req for FBI Report, dated 17 Jul 03.