RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00105
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED: NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  11 JUL 2006

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be changed to a medical discharge or early release separation.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He had been under medical care for almost a year prior to his discharge due to nerve irritation and was not sleeping much at all.  His medical records reflect he had surgery for ulnar nerve relocation and never received therapy, which has caused him many problems.

He has been dealing with pain and discomfort and needs to change his occupation.  He has not been able to utilize his GI Bill for school and does not know if he can stay in his present job.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12 Aug 85 for a period of six years.  Prior to the events under review applicant was promoted to the grade of airman first class with an effective date and date of rank of 25 Sep 85.

On 11 Jun 87, the squadron section commander initiated administrative discharge action against the applicant for misconduct, specifically for discreditable involvement with military and civilian authorities.  The specific reasons for the proposed action were:

	On 6 Jan 87, applicant was driving while intoxicated, and obtained and possessed a fraudulent driver’s license for the purpose of purchasing alcoholic beverages.  For this offense, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).

	On or about (o/a) 13 Apr 87 and 20 Apr 87, applicant stole money in the value of $47, which was the property of another Air Force member; and o/a the last week of Apr 87, he stole a car stereo in the value of more than $100, which was the property of the same airman.  For these offenses, he received Article 15 punishment.  His punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of airman basic.  

On that same date, applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification.  On 11 Jun 87, after consulting with counsel, applicant waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf.  On 19 Jun 87, the staff judge advocate found the case procedurally correct and factually sufficient to support the discharge, without probation and rehabilitation (P&R).  

On 23 Jun 87, the discharge authority approved a general (under honorable conditions) discharge and stated that probation and rehabilitation were not deemed appropriate.

The Report of Medical Examination, dated 15 Jun 87, reflects applicant was qualified for separation.

On 29 Jun 87, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10 by reason of Misconduct – Pattern of Discreditable Involvement with Military and Civilian Authorities, with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions).  He served 1 year, 10 months, and 18 days on active duty.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and recommended denial.  Applicant was administratively separated with a general discharge on 29 Jun 87 for misconduct, after 1 year, 10 months, and 18 day on active duty.   

A review of the service medical records shows that prior to entering the service the applicant’s left elbow was broken by a blow from a baseball bat requiring surgical repair and subsequent removal of hardware.  At the time of entry on active duty, examination of the elbow disclosed satisfactory function.  In Jun 86, the applicant presented with complaints of nerve problems with his elbow.  In Sep 86, he was diagnosed with Life Circumstances Problem resolving.  He was entered into group therapy and attended two sessions, but did not attend 10 other scheduled sessions.  Following his arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol, he was entered into an outpatient rehabilitation program and a mental health evaluation indicated there was no psychiatric illness present.

On 25 Jan 87, with three days of left elbow pain after weight lifting, he was subsequently evaluated by orthopedics and neurology and diagnosed with ulnar nerve compression associated with his prior injury.  Electro-diagnostic testing and clinical examination indicated at most a mild sensory compressive neuropathy at that time.  Persistent symptoms led to orthopedic surgery on 8 May 87, to move the nerve to a location where it would not be subjected to compression (ulnar nerve transposition).  Separation examination concluded that the applicant was medically world wide qualified for duty.  The nature of the ulnar nerve compression and the surgery with a result that indicated full return to duty did not require evaluation in the disability system.  On 25 Jun 87, a hospital examination verified that his elbow condition did not warrant placement on medical hold and medical evaluation board.

The Military Disability Evaluation System (DES), established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law, only offer compensation for those diseases or injuries which specifically rendered a member unfit for continued active service, were the cause for termination of their career, and then only for the degree of impairment present at the time of separation.  The mere presence of a medical condition does not qualify a member for disability evaluation or disability benefits.  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.  At the time of separation, his ulnar nerve condition had recently been treated with surgery with good results and all evidence at the time indicated full return to duty.

DOD policy states that members who are pending separation under provisions that authorize a characterization of service of Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC), even if the actual characterization that the member receives is general,  are not eligible for referral into the disability evaluation system unless otherwise provided by Service policies.  The Air Force Personnel Council determines under which basis for discharge the airman will be separated, misconduct or disability, as well as the characterization of service.  In this case, the applicant’s condition did not warrant disability processing at the time of his separation and dual action processing was not indicated.  If his case had been processed, based on policy, the Personnel Council would have directed a general discharge for misconduct and not disability discharge.  Action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law. 

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 14 Oct 05 for review and comment within 30 days.  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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case.  The applicant requests his general (under honorable conditions) discharge be changed to a medical discharge or early release separation.  However, we found no evidence which would lead us to believe that the applicant's separation or reason for separation were in error or contrary to the governing Air Force regulations.  Additionally, while the applicant did experience medical problems while on active duty, we found no evidence that his medical conditions at the time of his discharge rendered him unfit for continued military service.  The applicant’s case has undergone an exhaustive review by the BCMR Medical Consultant and there is nothing in the evidence provided by the applicant that would overcome his assessment of the case.  Therefore, we agree with his recommendation and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  In the absence of persuasive 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-00105 in Executive Session on 29 November 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Dec 04, w/atch. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 13 Oct 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Oct 05.

                                  
                                   Panel Chair