RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00458
		INDEX NUMBER: 110.02 & A49.01

	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge for “Unsatisfactory Performance” be changed to “Medical Reasons.”

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His reason for discharge should be changed based on the diagnosis of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (DHD) (sic) in order for him to qualify for Montgomery GI Bill benefits.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a neuropsychological report and the discharge recommendation he received from his commander.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 31 January 2001, for a period of six years.  His Armed Forces Classification Test (AFCT) scores were as follows:

			Administration	63
			Electronic	66
			General	59
			Mechanical	56

A neuropsychological report, dated 13 June 2003, concluded that testing results combined with historical information was consistent with a diagnosis of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Predominantly Inattentive Type.  The commander notified him on 30 June 2003, that he was recommending his discharge for unsatisfactory performance, specifically, failure to progress in on-the-job-training (OJT).  The commander stated his reasons for the action were the applicant’s two failures to obtain a passing score on his Career Development Course (CDC), scoring 60% and 62% when the minimum passing score was 65%.  The separation authority approved his discharge for unsatisfactory performance - failure to progress in OJT, without probation and rehabilitation.

He was honorably discharged on 15 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Unsatisfactory Performance).  He completed 2 years, 5 months, and 14 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The BCMR Medical Consultant states, in part, that there were two interrelated, potential bases for discharge: unsatisfactory performance, and a condition that interfered with military performance, not a disability.  Were the applicant discharged using the learning disorder as the reason, the narrative reason for his separation would be “Personality Disorder,” since all unsuiting mental conditions that result in administrative discharge are administratively labeled as such.  In order to qualify for Montgomery GI Bill benefits, he was required to complete 36 months of active duty, or 24 months of active duty followed by 48 months of reserve duty.  However, he would have only been required to serve 30 months of active duty if he had been discharged for “Convenience of the Government.”  A narrative reason for discharge of “Secretarial Authority” is treated as equivalent to “Convenience of the Government”; however, he only completed 29 months and 14 days of active service.

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

AFPC/DPPAT states, in part, that in order to qualify for Montgomery GI Bill benefits, applicant’s narrative reason for discharge must be hardship, service-connected disability, disability existing prior to entering active duty, physical or mental condition that interferes with duty, e.g., personality disorder, or reduction in force.

The AFPC/DPPAT 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 30 July 2004 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice to warrant changing the narrative reason for his separation from unsatisfactory performance to medical reasons.  Although 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 Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) was an unsuiting condition, it did not render him unfit for military service.  The narrative reason for discharge issued at the time of his separation accurately reflects that he was separated for unsatisfactory performance.  We, therefore, conclude that no basis exists upon which to recommend favorable action on his request that it be changed to medical reasons.

4.  Notwithstanding the above determination, we find sufficient evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting a measure of relief.  In that regard, applicant’s ADHD appears to have been the underlying cause for his discharge.  Neuropsychological testing was performed on applicant resulting in a diagnosis of ADHD and recommendations made to help him overcome the identified weaknesses, to include the possibility of a trial of medication.  However, following the evaluation, his commander initiated discharge action.  Further, during the legal review of the proposed discharge action, the Acting Staff Judge Advocate recommended applicant be granted probation and rehabilitation for a period of six months to see if treatment could help him overcome his inability to pass his CDCs.  In view of this, and since changing his reason for discharge to “Secretarial Authority” will enable him to access Montgomery GI Bill benefits, we recommend his 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 he was not discharged on 15 July 2003, but was continued on active duty until 1 August 2003, on which date, he was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 1.2 (Secretarial Authority), with Separation Program Designator (SPD) “JFF.”

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2004-00458 in Executive Session on 1 September 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Member

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

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Jan 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 17 Jun 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAT, dated 20 Jul 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jul 04.

                                   Chair

AFBCMR BC-2004-00458

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 XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that he was not discharged on 15 July 2003, but was continued on active duty until 1 August 2003, on which date, he was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 1.2 (Secretarial Authority), with Separation Program Designator (SPD) “JFF.”

                                                                            Director
                                                                            Air Force Review Boards Agency