RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04500 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be changed to a medical discharge. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was discharged directly to a Veteran’s Affairs hospital where he was an on and off patient until 1978. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 29 July 1971. On 11 September 1973, he was notified of his commander’s intent to discharge him from the Air Force for apathetic and defective attitude as evidenced by his performance. The applicant had received two Article 15’s, one Letter of Reprimand, and a Court Order. The applicant stated that his situation was hopeless and that he would to whatever was necessary, including misconduct, to affect a discharge from the Air Force. He acknowledged the nature of the action, his right to submit a rebuttal and make statements on his behalf and counseled that he may waive such rights. The applicant waived his right to submit a rebuttal. On 28 September 1973, the staff judge advocate found the discharge legally sufficient and recommended the commander discharge the applicant with a general discharge. On 4 October 1973, the commander approved the discharge and directed he be separated with a general discharge. The applicant was separated on 15 November 1973 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He was credited with 2 Years, 3 months and 16 days of active duty service. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR IMA Medical Advisor recommends denial. In consideration of the appeal for a medical discharge, the reviewer must evaluate whether a medical or mental health condition was unfitting at the time of separation and was, itself, the cause of service termination. More importantly, the reviewer must evaluate medical and administrative documentation to determine whether an error or injustice occurred with respect to the applicant’s appeal. The administrative record contains clear and convincing evidence of repeated episodes of misconduct and failures of basic judgment expected of all airman to uphold. Of significance is the applicant’s response to the evaluation officer during a counseling session on 20 September 1973 where the applicant states that his situation is hopeless in his opinion and that he was destined to do only the most menial task for the remainder of his military service. Therefore, he stated, he intended to do whatever necessary to leave the service, including, misconduct. The evaluation officer concluded that the applicant was unsuitable for further military service due to his apathetic and defective attitude as evidenced by his disciplinary record, statements during the interview confirming efforts to do whatever is necessary including misconduct and unsuccessful rehabilitation attempts. To evaluate whether a medical condition rendered the applicant unfit at the time of separation and thus represented the cause of service termination, the reviewer must examine the available medical evidence. Apart from one documented seizure in 1973, there is insufficient clinical evidence to support the proposition that a seizure disorder, mental health disorder or any other medical condition rendered him unfit for duty. To the contrary, the applicant’s performance reports from 1971 through 1973 demonstrated the applicant was indeed capable of performing his assigned duties at or above performance levels when proper focus and discipline was applied. This demonstrates the applicant was capable of satisfactory performance and that no unfitting health condition was the cause for service termination. The reviewer concurs with the administrative discharge. While a dual-action course could have also been applied to this case, there is no medical evidence of an unfitting or mental health condition which would meet the requirements for dual-action approach. The BCMR IMA Medical Advisor’s complete 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 25 April 2014, 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. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we are not persuaded by the evidence submitted in this appeal that a change in the record is warranted. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the BCMR IMA Medical Advisor and adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion and find that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2013-04500 in Executive Session on 24 June 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-04500 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dtd 1 Sep 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR IMA Medical Advisor, dtd 8 Apr 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dtd 25 Apr 14.