RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03288
		INDEX CODE:  108.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge for unsatisfactory performance be changed to a medical discharge.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The discharge board should have used the evidence regarding the medical condition for which he was being treated instead of making a decision based on his weight problems.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided extracts from his medical records.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 3 Jul 67 for a period of four years in the grade of airman basic.

On 1 Feb 84, the applicant’s commander initiated action to discharge him by board proceeding or waiver thereof for financial irresponsibility and excessive weight.

On 15 Mar 84, a board of officers convened under the provisions of AFR 39-10 to determine whether he should be discharged from the service prior to the expiration of his term of service because of failure in the Weight Management Program and irresponsibility in the management of his personal finances.  After hearing the entire case, a majority of the board found the applicant had exceeded weight standards between 28 Jul 81 and 5 Mar 84, which were not due to medical causes beyond his control, and had been financially irresponsible between Jul 81 and Sep 83.  The board recommended the applicant be discharged for exceeding the weight standards and financial irresponsibility with a general discharge.

On 24 Apr 84, the discharge authority approved the discharge action and directed the applicant be furnished a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

On 13 Jun 84, the Secretary of the Air Force denied lengthy service probation and directed the approved discharge be executed and the applicant be discharged under honorable conditions.

Applicant was discharged on 20 Jun 84 under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Unsatisfactory Performance) and furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  He was credited with 16 years, 11 months, and 18 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Medical Consultant recommended denial indicating that at the time of the applicant’s discharge, there were no medical conditions that would have warranted his referral into the Disability Evaluation System.  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 that prevents performance of any work commensurate with rank and experience or precludes assignment to military duties.  In the Medical Consultant’s view, the action and disposition in this case were proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law, and no change in the records is warranted.

A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 8 Apr 04 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  The applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions were duly noted.  However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions or the documentation presented in support of his appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Medical Consultant.  The evidence of record reflects the applicant was involuntarily discharged for unsatisfactory performance.  We find no evidence which would lead us to believe that his administrative discharge was improper or contrary to the governing directive under which it was effected.  Therefore, in the absence of sufficient evidence the information used as a basis for his discharge was erroneous, or at the time of his involuntary separation, the applicant was unfit to perform the duties of his rank and office, we agree with the recommendation of the Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Accordingly, 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 BC-2003-03288 in Executive Session on 18 May 04, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Sep 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 17 Mar 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Apr 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 28 Apr 04.