RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00707

	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge for unsatisfactory performance be changed to a medical discharge, or in the alternative, the reason for his discharge be changed to personality disorder.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His reason for discharge should be changed to disability based on the diagnosis of Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) in order for him to qualify for Montgomery GI Bill benefits.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 December 1998, for a period of four years.  His Armed Forces Classification Test (AFCT) scores were as follows:

			Administration	67
			Electronic	55
			General	52
			Mechanical	65

Based on four incidents in which he failed to obey, failed to follow his checklist, and failed to perform as instructed, he was seen by the Chief, Psychological Services on 8, 12, and 16 June 2000, for a non-emergency command-directed Mental Health Evaluation.  The Mental Health Evaluation was completed on 22 June 2000, and based on the diagnosis of borderline intellectual functioning, it was recommended that he be reassigned to a less mentally challenging assignment within the squadron or be cross-trained to a career field more appropriate to his intellectual level.  The diagnosis was determined to not be so severe that his ability to function in the military was significantly impaired and his administrative separation was not recommended.

He was disqualified from Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 2A333B (Tactical Aircraft Maintenance), and his AFSC was redesignated as 9A000 (unclassified airman), effective 6 July 2000.

He was readministered the AFCT on 12 July 2000, resulting in the following scores:

			Administration	33
			Electronic	39
			General	25
			Mechanical	33

He was given the option of accepting his new AFCT scores, or retaining his old AFCT scores.  He elected to retain his old AFCT scores.

On 1 August 2000, his supervisor referred an Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 2 December 1998 through 1 August 2000.  The report contained ratings in Section III, Item 3 (How Well Does Ratee Comply with Standards?), and Item 4 (How is Ratee’s Conduct on/off Duty?), and comments in Section V (Rater’s Comments) and Section VI (Additional Rater’s Comments), that made the report a referral.

The commander notified him on 16 January 2001, that he was recommending his discharge for unsatisfactory performance - failure to perform assigned duties properly.  The commander stated his reasons for the action were as follows:

	a.	On 1 and 2 November 1999, he failed to study his Career Development Course (CDC) materials or to have those materials available to do so, as evidenced by a Letter of Counseling (LOC), dated 5 November 1999, and a Memorandum for Record (MFR), dated 20 December 2000.

	b.	On 12 November 1999, he was found lacking in both attention to detail and situational awareness, as evidenced by an LOC, dated 12 November 1999, and an MFR, dated 20 December 2000.

	c.	On 15 November 1999, he failed to obey simple instructions, as evidenced by an LOC, dated 15 November 1999, and an MFR, dated 21 December 2000.

	d.	On 5 July 2000, he again failed to follow simple instructions, as evidenced by an LOC, dated 5 July 2000.

	e.	On 12 July 2000, he was disqualified from his current AFSC, as evidenced by an AF Form 422, Physical Profile Serial Report, dated 12 July 2000; a Mental Health Evaluation, dated 22 June 2000; and an MFR, dated 2 November 2000, with attachment.

	f.	On 19 December 2000, he failed to go to a mandatory appointment, as evidenced by a Letter of Admonishment (LOA), dated 18 December 2000.

The separation authority approved his discharge for unsatisfactory performance - failure to perform assigned duties properly, and determined that he was not a suitable candidate for probation and rehabilitation.

He was honorably discharged on 14 February 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Unsatisfactory Performance).  He completed 2 years, 2 months, and 13 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The BCMR Medical Consultant states, in part, that although the action and disposition in this case were proper and equitable, if acceptable to the applicant, the reason for his discharge could be changed to personality disorder.  As a result of his failure to progress in his CDC, inattention to detail, difficulty following instructions, and required close supervision, he was evaluated by mental health and diagnosed with borderline intellectual function, and properly discharged based on his unsatisfactory performance.  He was not diagnosed with ADD while on active duty, nor has he provided evidence that he was diagnosed with the condition since his discharge.  Although he was not diagnosed with a personality disorder or other mental disorder, his existing prior to service (EPTS) developmental condition appears to have been the underlying cause for his failure to progress, and could be considered the basis for his discharge.  Were he discharged for his borderline intellectual functioning, his narrative reason for separation would have been personality disorder, since all unsuiting mental conditions that result in administrative discharge are administratively labeled as such.  Furthermore, changing his reason for discharge to personality disorder may enable him to access Montgomery GI Bill benefits.

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

AFPC/DPPD recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the applicant has not provided medical documentation to substantiate that an injustice occurred during his involuntary administrative discharge processing.  However, they do not object to the BCMR Medical Consultant’s recommendation that his reason for discharge be changed to personality disorder, provided the applicant agrees, it legally qualifies him for Montgomery GI Bill benefits, and is not associated or tied into the military disability evaluation process.  The unit’s unsuccessful attempt to retrain him left them no choice but to initiate administrative separation since he was unable to reasonably perform his duties.  If he had been processed through the Air Force Disability Evaluation System, it appears that an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) would have considered his borderline retardation as being unsuiting, rather than unfitting, not ratable or compensable, and recommended he be returned to duty for processing under the appropriate Air Force Instruction for his situation.  All evidence indicates that the administrative discharge action taken by the unit at the time of his discharge was appropriate.

The AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPAT recommends the applicant be advised to reapply for Montgomery GI Bill benefits and submit the appropriate supporting documents should the AFBCMR grant relief.  The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) may award Montgomery GI Bill benefits to an individual separating for unsatisfactory performance if he/she served at least the full first period of obligated active duty.  The law permits the DVA to award benefits to an individual serving 26 or fewer months if he/she separates for a mental condition that interferes with duty (i.e., personality disorder).

The AFPC/DPPAT evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant states that he has been diagnosed as being a paranoid schizophrenic and is 100% disabled.  His psychiatrist told him it could have been caused from his military service.  Perhaps when he was evaluated at behavioral health they did not realize his problem.

Applicant’s complete submissions are at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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 of error or injustice to warrant changing the applicant’s administrative separation for unsatisfactory performance to a medical discharge.  Although the applicant requests a medical discharge, he provides no evidence that he was unfit for continued military service.  In this respect, we note that a finding of unfitness is a prerequisite of any disability processing.  In the applicant’s case, although his Borderline Intellectual Functioning was an unsuiting condition, it did not render him unfit for military service.  In view of the foregoing, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on his request for a medical discharge.

4.  The BCMR Medical Consultant has indicated that since the applicant’s EPTS developmental condition appears to have been the underlying cause for his discharge, the narrative reason for discharge could be changed to Personality Disorder (a condition that interfered with military service).  We agree with his opinion and the applicant also concurs with this recommendation.  Therefore, we recommend that the records be corrected to the extent indicated below.  Additionally, the recommended change to the applicant’s narrative reason for discharge may entitle him to benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill.  Therefore, it is suggested that he reapply to the Department of Veterans Affairs with respect to this issue.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 14 February 2001, he was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.11.1 (Personality Disorder) and issued a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of “JFX.”

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2003-00707 in Executive Session on 23 September 2003 and 20 January 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				Panel Chair
				Member
				Member

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

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Feb 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 15 May 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 18 Jun 03.

    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAT, dated 14 Jul 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jul 03.
    Exhibit G.  Letters, Applicant, undated.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2003-00707

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 14 February 2001, he was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.11.1 (Personality Disorder) and issued a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of “JFX.”

                                                                            
                                                                            Director
                                                                            Air Force Review Boards Agency