RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00096
		INDEX NUMBER:  145.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for discharge be changed from “unsuitable-apathy, defective attitude-evaluation officer” to a medical discharge and his rank be restored to senior airman.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was wrongfully dismissed from the Air Force and should have been medically discharged.  He states that several months after falling off a bunk bed and injuring his head, he informed his commander that he didn’t fell well and that he wasn’t himself.  One week after his discharge he suffered a seizure and later underwent brain surgery.  

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement, a copy of an independent medical evaluation, a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty, and a copy of a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty 22 November 1976, and served as an Administration Specialist/Staff Support Administration.  

He was punished with an Article 15, forfeiture of  $150 per month for two months and 14 days extra duty on 31 March 1977 for wrongfully using marijuana.  On 4 November 1977, he received a Letter of Reprimand for failure to show to his appointed place of duty on 2 November 1977, and remained absent until 1200 hours the next day.  On 8 December 1978, he received a Letter of Counseling for failing to pay North Carolina state income tax.  On 26 June 1979, he received a Letter of Reprimand for failure to show to his appointed place of duty on 26 June until 1000 hours.  On    27 June 1979, he received a Letter of Counseling for writing checks with insufficient funds (three checks totaling $19.80), and was referred for financial counseling.  On 4 October 1979, he received a Letter of Counseling for failure to pay just debt ($131 owed to another Air Force member).  On 31 October 1979, he received a Letter of Reprimand for a civilian arrest 9 October 1979.  On 9 October 1979, he was served a warrant for his arrest by the Sumter County Sheriff for “Trespassing After Notice”.  The applicant had been “given written notice not to be on said property again; however failed to obey the order”.  On 10 October 1979, he posted and forfeited a fine of $25.  Documentation related to the trespassing arrest shows that the applicant was charged in September 1977 for housebreaking/larceny but that those charges were later dropped.  The applicant received his second Article 15 on 9 November 1979, for failure to show to his appointed place of duty and was reduced to A1C.  The applicant’s statement in response to the Article 15 indicates he was participating in field exercises at Hurlburt Field, FL and went with friends to clubs in the local community and ended up in Pensacola, unable to get a ride back to the base late at night.  

The applicant’s commander initiated discharge action on         10 December 1979 and recommended a general characterization of service.  The independent officer evaluation and legal review of discharge dated 10 January 1980 and 22 January 1980 respectively concluded that the applicant’s misconduct formed a sufficient basis for discharge, but recommended that his service characterization was better described as honorable.  On         31 January 1980, he was administratively separated with an honorable discharge.  He served three (3) years, two (2) months and ten (10) days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  Because he was medically fit while on active duty and his condition had its onset after discharge he was not eligible for an Air Force disability evaluation.  Title 10, U.S.C., Chapter 61 is the federal statute that charges the Service Secretaries with maintaining a fit and vital force.  The mere presence of a medical condition does not qualify a member for disability evaluation.  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.  Members, who are pending a scheduled separation and develop a new medical condition, may be retained pending medical evaluation only if the condition represents a very significant new condition that would warrant a disability discharge.  Had the applicant experienced his seizure before discharge he would have been evaluated in the disability system as discussed above.

Action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.  

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial.  The applicant failed to provide medical documentation to corroborate that an injustice occurred during the period of his involuntary administrative discharge process that would justify a change to his records to reflect he was awarded a disability discharge under provisions of Chapter 61, Title 10, USC and AFM 35-4.  

The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial.  The demotion action taken against the applicant was procedurally correct and there is no evidence there were any irregularities or that the case was mishandled.  However, should the Board grant the applicant’s request, he will be entitled to his former grade of senior airman reinstated with a date of rank of 1 March 1979 per SOA-316.

The DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

He states that the recommendation to the Board is unfair.  Petty misconducts with no substance were used to help form these recommendations.  The review of his records found incidents with no substance, but yet a review of the same records cannot find documented evidence of great importance to his case.  He believes that if he was given the correct diagnosis from the start, and received the proper medication he could have been a productive member of the Air Force.  He also states that he was never given the chance to be evaluated in the disability system for his medical condition.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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 are not persuaded by the evidence provided that the reason for his discharge from the Air Force was inappropriate, erroneous, or that he was denied rights to which he was entitled.  Since there were no disqualifying medical conditions at the time of his separation, we see no reason why he would have been eligible for consideration in the disability evaluation system.  In regards to the restoration of his grade to senior airman, it is our opinion that given the circumstances surrounding his reduction to the grade of airman first class, the actions taken by his commander were proper and in compliance with the appropriate regulations and directives.  Therefore, 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 this application in Executive Session on 19 August 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00096:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Jan 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 2 May 03.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 10 Jun 03.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPWB, dated 18 Jun 03.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jul 03.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Jul 03, w/atchs.