RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03211 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ __ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation be changed from “Misconduct” to “Medical.” ________________________________________________________________ __ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His unsatisfactory job performance that led to his discharge was due to his undiagnosed Attention Deficient Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Following his discharge he was diagnosed with ADHD, and received the proper treatment, which completely relieved his symptoms. He is a single parent and working full time to support his daughter. Additionally, he was recently admitted to Southern Methodist University. He has a 3.695 Grade Point Average (GPA) and was invited to become a member of the University Honors Program. He belongs to the Honors Institute, made the Dean’s List and the President’s List with perfect academic performance achieving a 4.0 GPA. He is studying to become an attorney and has not forgotten the values and the training he learned in the Air Force. Had he not been limited by his medical condition, he would have made the Air Force a career. In support of his request the applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; work history, medical documents, education documents and various other documents associated with his request. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ __ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 1 Dec 1992, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 29 Aug 1994, his commander notified him he was recommending he be discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. The specific reasons for his action were that he received two Article 15s, three Letters of Reprimand and two Letters of Counseling in a thirteen month period. On 29 Aug 1994, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification and was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf. On 6 Sep 1994, the Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge legally sufficient. On 6 Sep 1994, the discharge authority approved the separation and directed a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 8 Sep 1984, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He was credited with one year, nine months and eight days of total active service. ________________________________________________________________ __ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states that documentation on file in the master personnel record supports the basis for discharge. The discharge to include the service characterization was appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant regrettably recommends denial. There is no indication that any diagnosable mental disorder obstructed his ability to distinguish right from wrong during his military service; nor rendered him incompetent in thought processes and decision-making. The nature of the applicant's infractions are not diagnostic of ADHD or any other mental impairment, as these may occur in individuals with no organic or developmental mental disorder. Thus, the Medical Consultant was unable to establish a definitive cause and effect relationship between the applicant's infractions and his post-service diagnosis of ADHD. The Medical Consultant is sensitive to the applicant's career objectives and the possible adverse effect his DD Form 214 may have upon his future aspirations, e.g., public service. For this reason, the Medical Consultant recommends the applicant consider the option of presenting his case before a Personal Appearance Discharge Review Board, via DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United State, where he would have access to legal counsel, could present sworn or unsworn statements, and present witnesses on his behalf, along with consideration of his post- service behavior and conduct; if he feels his discharge was inappropriate. ? The applicant's current educational pursuits and aspirations certainly are not reflective of an individual who was chronically late for work and unkempt in his military bearing. However, he has not met his burden of proof. The discharge authority acted within his authority to separate the applicant after such a lengthy series of minor disciplinary infractions, spanning his entire brief period of service. The applicant's assignment to Security Forces likely mandated a higher standard of conduct; hence the possible perception of harshness or a "quick trigger" in issuing the applicant reprimands and counselings and the ultimate decision to administratively discharge him for misconduct. The complete Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ __ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 23 Dec 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). ________________________________________________________________ __ 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; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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 this application in Executive Session 15 Apr 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC- 2013-03211: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Jun 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 30 Aug 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, BCMR Medical Advisory, dated 20 Dec 2013. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 23 Dec 2013. Panel Chair 1