RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:	BC-2008-01035 INDEX CODE:	110.00
COUNSEL:	NONE HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His	reenlistment	eligibility	(RE)	code	and	separation	program designator (SPD) code be changed.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His discharge coding was based on a psychological issue rather than his thyroid/graves disease which is medical and Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) compensable.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release of Discharge from Active Duty, Certificate of Recognition of Service, and a copy of his Bachelor of Arts degree diploma.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 June 1976 in the grade of airman basic. He was progressively promoted to the grade of sergeant having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 December 1979.

On 15 June 1981, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend his discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of AFM 39-12, chapter 2, section A, paragraph 2- 4b. The specific reasons for this action were as follows:

a.	The applicant’s diagnosis by a clinical psychologist, as having an immature personality, chronic moderate, a personality disorder that was manifested by poor impulse control, poor judgment, drug abuse and as having difficulty dealing with peer pressure.

b.	A Letter of Reprimand (LOR) dated 1 August 1980, for his involvement in a drug related incident.
a.	

c.	His Administrative Hold on PCS assignment dated 5 August 1980.

d.	A letter to the States Attorney dated 16 December 1980 concerning a civil court arrest for possession of marijuana on
8 December 1980.
e.	A Social Action letter dated 29 December 1980 regarding his rehabilitation failure.

f.	A letter from the States Attorney dated 23 March 1981, informing the organization of the 8 December 1980 civil arrest.

g.	An OSI extraction report informing his organization of the	arrest,	conviction	and	punishment	imposed	on	him	for	the
8 December 1980 civil arrest.
He was advised of his rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of the notification. After consulting with counsel the applicant submitted a conditional waiver. He requested that he receive an honorable discharge. In a legal review of the case file, the staff judge advocate recommended discharge. On 21 July 1981, the discharge authority concurred with the recommendations and directed an honorable discharge. The applicant was discharged on 24 July 1981.  He served 5 years, 1 month and
4 days on active duty.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant states that he found no evidence of record that the applicant’s thyroid disorder interfered with his ability to perform his military duties to the extent that a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) should have been convened. Instead, the records reflect that it was the applicant’s maladaptive pattern of behavior which interfered with the performance of his military duties.

The applicant’s personality disorder is not considered a disability that warrants an MEB or referral through the Military Disability Evaluation System (MDES). On the other  hand, operating under a different set of laws (title 38, US Code), the DVA is authorized to offer compensation for any service-connected medical condition without regard to it impact upon a service member’s retainability or its impact upon duty performance. Additionally, noting the applicant’s history of recurring marijuana possession during military service, he was eligible to receive a less favorable narrative reason for discharge, e.g., drug abuse and a less favorable characterization of his military service, e.g., general (under honorable conditions).

Finally, although there is evidence of record that the applicant was treated for hyperthyroidism and underwent ablation of an overactive thyroid gland, twice utilizing an iodine-containing pharmaceutical (radioactive iodine) after failing to improve on propylthiouracil, the BCMR Medical Consultant found no service medical documentation that a thyroid disorder ever interfered with the applicant’s military service to the extent that it should have been taken into consideration as a basis for discharge or a referral through the MDES, or an underlying cause of his personality disorder, either prior to treatment or while under replacement therapy for hypothyroidism. The AFBCMR Consultant is aware of circumstances that may result in an organic-induced personality disorder, as in severe brain trauma or the result of a malignancy of the brain. However, there is no evidence that the applicant suffered a brain insult or disease that could have been the cause for his personality disorder.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant further opines that, although several years have passed since the applicant’s discharge, the nature and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge do not justify a change in the SPD code or the RE code assigned for his period of military service. No error or injustice was found in the processing of the applicant’s discharge under policies and procedures that implement the law.

The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 13 November 2008,  the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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 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. After a thorough review of the evidence of record, it is our opinion that given the circumstances surrounding his separation from the Air Force, the RE and  SPD codes assigned were proper and in compliance with the appropriate instructions. Therefore, we agree with the opinion provided by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the
1.	

applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2008-01035 in Executive Session on 29 January 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair 
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 11 March 2008, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Record.
Exhibit C.	Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated
7 August 2008.
Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 13 November 2008.