RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02779 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to a Honorable Discharge. 2. The narrative reason for separation be removed from his records. 3. His rank be reinstated to Airman First Class (A1C). ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and was demoted because the medical evidence was unavailable to substantiate he was experiencing medical problems. The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) has established that his medical condition (Parkinson’s Disease) was directly related to his military service. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 23 Nov 87. On 24 Apr 89, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend his discharge for Misconduct under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen. The reasons for the action included dereliction of duty, failure to obey a lawful order, failure to maintain standards, failure to report, making a false statement, being disrespectful to a commissioned officer, making a threat, and vacation of suspended punishment, all in violation of various articles of the UCMJ,; for which he received verbal, counseling, letters of counseling (LOC), a letter of reprimand (LOR), and NJP. The commander noted in his recommendation for discharge that the applicant underwent a mental health evaluation on 9 Nov 88 and was found to be mentally competent, qualified for world-wide duty, and capable to understand and participate in any administrative proceedings. The commander further noted numerous attempts were provided to applicant to meet Air Force standards; however, all attempts were unsuccessful. On 5 May 89, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and, after consulting with legal counsel, elected to submit a statement in his own behalf. On 11 May 89, the legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient and recommended the applicant be furnished a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 16 May 89, the discharge authority concurred with the commander’s recommendation and directed the applicant’s discharge. On 25 May 89, the applicant was furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, with a narrative reason for separation of “misconduct- pattern conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline,” and was credited with two years, and seven months, and two days of total active service. On 3 Oct 11, according to documentation provided by the applicant, the DVA awarded the applicant service connection and compensation for Parkinson’s disease, effective 25 Jun 04. A request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant on 25 Feb 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The applicant states he was experiencing medical distress at the time of his separation. A review of the medical records provided did not reveal the applicant was diagnosed or experiencing any acute, chronic medical or mental health condition that was deemed unfitting while on active duty or at the time his separation from military service. The applicant's health care provider noted on 2 Dec 88, that he was unable to substantiate any clinical diagnosis with respect to the applicant. It was further noted the applicant was discharged from the hospital yesterday in perfect health, but commented that, he can't guarantee the same thing won't happen when he returned to corrective custody. The health care provider strongly believed the applicant may have been abusing the system. In addition the applicant was evaluated by a neurologist and received several mental health evaluations to determine whether a medical or mental health diagnosis could be established. There was no evidence of any mental health or physical condition which would remotely explain or represent the basis for the applicant's repeated instances of misconduct and missed opportunities to implement corrective actions. In fact, throughout the applicant’s enlistment, he was physically fit for duty and world-wide qualified. The Superintendent of Correctional Custody program noted whenever the applicant was given physical work to do, he became very sick and had to go to the hospital. The applicant had been admitted to the hospital three times and released back to correctional custody twice, only to be re-admitted into the hospital within a couple of hours. The Superintendent further noted this was a waste of time for the hospital staff, correctional custody, and the United States Air Force to continue to play this game with the applicant. Without sufficient documentation of a medical condition or disqualifying mental health condition, the action to administratively discharge the applicant was appropriate. The applicant clearly demonstrated a pattern of misconduct which justified an administrative separation not due to any medical condition or mental health diagnosis. The military Disability Evaluation System (DES) was established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force and can, by law, only offer compensation for those service incurred diseases or injures which specifically rendered a service member unfit for continued active service and were the cause for career termination; and then only for the degree of impairment present at the time of separation and not based on future developments. Per Department of Defense Instruction 1332.32, Physical Disability Evaluation, a service member shall be considered unfit when the evidence establishes that the member, due to physical disability, is unable to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating to include duties during a remaining period of Reserve obligation. A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 4 Apr 14, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. ________________________________________________________________ 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 and his contentions were duly noted. However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions and the documentation presented in support of his appeal sufficient to override the rationale provided by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the applicant’s discharge on the basis of clemency; however, we do not find the documentation presented sufficient to conclude that his activities since leaving the service are sufficient to overcome the misconduct for which he was discharged. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence the applicant’s non-judicial punishment (NJP), administrative discharge, and narrative reason for separation represented an abuse of authority or were disproportionate to the circumstances, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material 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-2013-02779 in Executive Session on 8 May 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-02779 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Jun 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Feb 14,/atch. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 1 Apr 14. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Apr 14. 1 2