RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-04014
		INDEX CODE:  110.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general discharge be changed to a medical discharge and his narrative reason for separation of “misconduct” be changed.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reason behind most of his misconduct was because he was not getting to the places he was supposed to be on time, which was a result of a medical condition with his heart that made it hard for him to get to sleep.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 4 Aug 99 for a period of four years in the grade of airman first class (A1C/E-3).  

On 2 Feb 00, the squadron section commander initiated administrative discharge action against the applicant for a Pattern of Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline.  The specific reasons for the proposed action were:

On or about 18 Nov 99, applicant failed to report to duty on time.  He received a letter of reprimand (LOR) and an unfavorable information file (UIF) was established.

On or about 6 Dec 99, applicant failed to report to duty on time and on or about 9 and 10 Dec 99, he failed to report to duty (Physical Training), for which he received a letter of counseling (LOC).

On or about 15 Dec 99, he failed to report to duty (First Term Airman Center) on time, for which he received an LOC.

On or about 16 Dec 99, he failed to report to duty on time, he also failed to go to a medical appointment on that same day, and on or about 17 Dec 99, he failed to report for duty (First Term Airman Center) on time, for which he received an LOR.

Also, between on or about 3 Jan 00 to 4 Jan 00, he was absent without authority from his appointed place of duty, for which he received an Article 15.  The Article 15 punishment imposed on the applicant consisted of reduction to the grade of airman basic, with a new date of rank of 25 Jan 00 and restriction to the base for 30 days.

On that same date, applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification.  On 3 Feb 00, after consulting with counsel, applicant declined to submit statements in his own behalf.  On 10 Feb 00, the Acting Staff Judge Advocate found the case file legally sufficient to justify an administrative discharge for misconduct and recommended that the applicant be separated with a general discharge, without probation or rehabilitation.  He also recommended that the applicant be barred from the base for two years.  On 18 Feb 00, the discharge authority approved a general discharge, without probation and rehabilitation.

On 22 Feb 00, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 by reason of misconduct, with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions).  He served 6 months and 19 days on active duty.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to the applicant’s medical condition while on active duty are contained in the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation at Exhibit C.

On 21 Aug 00, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) found that neither evidence of record, nor that provided by the applicant, substantiated an inequity or impropriety which would justify a change in the discharge (see AFDRB Hearing Record at Exhibit B).

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant states that the applicant was administratively separated on 22 Feb 00, after 6 months and 19 days on active duty.  He indicated that the applicant had completed basic training and while at technical training he failed to report for details and was found in bed.  He received an LOR, which documented that he had failed to complete the required out-processing for his move to his next duty station.  A letter documenting these same difficulties was forwarded to the applicant’s new commander.  The AFBCMR Medical Consultant listed the other events which led up to the applicant’s discharge.

A review of the applicant’s medical records shows that he was diagnosed with a congenital heart condition (present since birth), a hole in the septum (wall) separating his right and left atrial chambers (either an Atrial Septal Defect (hole) or a Patent Foramen Ovale (failure of the foramen ovale to close at birth, a normal opening in the atrial septum during development while still in the womb that closes at birth) while in technical training.  The applicant was discharged due to misconduct prior to definitive diagnosis of his existing prior to service (EPTS) condition.

On his 18 Jun 99 enlistment physical examination the applicant denied all symptoms and apparently completed basic training without difficulty.  Shortly after entering active duty he was diagnosed with Sickle Trait and was counseled regarding the rare association with exercise related complications and signed a counseling form.  In Oct 89, while in technical training the applicant went through a series of medical examinations on his heart, it was recommended that a trans-esophageal echocardiogram (TEE) be conducted to further clarify the extent of the applicant’s condition and potential requirement for corrective surgery. 

The applicant graduated from technical training and arrived at his new duty station in mid Nov 99.  He was seen by an internal medicine specialist on 6 Dec 99, who noted the TEE results.  He felt that the applicant’s chest pain and dyspnea were due to his congenital heart condition.  On 10 Dec 99, applicant experienced chest discomfort and shortness of breath while wearing a gas mask and was evaluated at the clinic at which time he was noted to be anxious but otherwise had a normal evaluation.  His chest pain was felt to be related to his anxiety versus his suspected heart condition.

On 27 Dec 99, the applicant was evaluated by a civilian cardiologist for his history of heart murmur and suspected congenital atrial septal defect.  The examination was felt to be suggestive of the suspected congenital heart disease and further evaluation by TEE was recommended.

In addition to the heart conditions, in Nov 99, the applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, and on 27 Jan 00, he was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotion and Conduct.  There is no indication that his mental health providers felt that his adjustment disorder was severe enough to have warranted administrative discharge.

The applicant was diagnosed with an EPTS congenital heart condition, either an Atrial Septal Defect or a Patent Foramen based on a trans-thoracic echocardiogram.  More definitive diagnostic evaluation was not completed because of his administrative separation for misconduct.  He contends that his congenital heart disease caused his misconduct, however there is no medical basis for this.  The applicant completed basic training and technical training before exhibiting his pattern of misconduct.  There was no reason to delay his discharge for elective evaluation of his congenital heart condition and such delay is specifically prohibited by Air Force instruction.  

Such a congenital defect is disqualifying for both entrance and continuation on active duty in the Air Force if not satisfactorily corrected.  Had the applicant not engaged in a pattern of misconduct and been discharged, it is likely that he would have been offered the option to undergo surgical repair if clinically indicated with the potential for retention on active duty.

Action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.  It is his opinion that no change in the records is warranted.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPD reviewed this application and commented on the applicant’s applicability through the Disability Evaluation System (DES) under the provisions of AFI 36-3212.  The purpose of the 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.  Those members who are separated or retired by reason of a physical disability may be eligible for certain disability compensation.  The decision to process a member through the military DES is determined by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) when he or she is determined disqualified for continued military service.  The decision to conduct an MEB is made by the medical treatment facility providing the health care to the member.

In the applicant’s case, his records show that he was being treated for a congenital heart condition/atrial septic defect (considered to have existed prior to his entrance on active duty); however, his discharge took effect prior to completion of his treatment.  Although applicant’s records reflect he was treated for some medical conditions during his short military career, none appeared serious or life threatening enough as to preclude him from performing his military duties or curtailing his career.  Had a medical evaluation board (MEB) been initiated and the case referred to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB), the Board more than likely would have recommended he be discharged under other than Chap 61, Title 10, USC due to preexisting medical conditions prior to his military service.  The preponderance of evidence in the applicant’s military records does not substantiate or support his request for a disability discharge.  

It is essential that veterans understand that service members who incur service-connected medical conditions while on active duty are authorized compensation and treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) under the provisions of Title 38, USC.

They further stated that the applicant’s case file revealed no errors or irregularities during his involuntary administrative discharge process that would justify a change to his military records.  They agreed with the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s review of the medical aspects of the case and recommended that the applicant’s request be denied. 

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 9 May 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence or error or injustice warranting a change in the applicant’s discharge.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are persuaded that there was no medical basis that the applicant’s congenital heart disease caused his misconduct.  His medical condition was disqualifying for both entrance into and continuation on active duty in the Air Force, if not satisfactorily corrected.  Further, the applicant completed basic training and technical training before exhibiting his pattern of misconduct and a delay of his discharge for elective evaluation of his condition is specifically prohibited by Air Force instruction.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or injustice.  In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting a change in the applicant’s reason for separation.  Based upon the evidence of record, he was evaluated as having an adjustment disorder, however, there was no indication that his mental health providers felt that his adjustment disorder was severe enough to warrant administrative discharge.  Nevertheless, we believe that some form of relief should be granted.  Although the Board does not condone the misconduct of the applicant, we recommend that his reason for separation be changed to “Secretarial Authority.”  Therefore, we recommend the applicant's records be corrected to the extent indicated below.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 22 February 2000, he was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 1.2 (Secretarial Authority), with a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of “JFF.”

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-04014 in Executive Session on 19 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Dec 02.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 30 Mar 03.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 1 May 03.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 May 03.

                                   

AFBCMR BC-2002-04014

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 22 February 2000, he was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 1.2 (Secretarial Authority), with a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of “JFF.”