RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-05223 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable and he be considered for a medical discharge. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His misconduct began after he suffered injuries from a motor vehicle accident and while medicated as a result of these injuries. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 17 Aug 95, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 24 Mar 98, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend his discharge for Misconduct - Minor disciplinary infractions. The reasons for the action were as follows: a. On or about 29 Jan 97, the applicant was verbally counseled for unlawfully parking in a fire lane. b. On or about 5 May 97, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failing to comply with AFI 36-2903, Dress and Appearance, in that he was unshaven. c. On 18 May 97, the applicant exceeded the speed limit by driving 41 miles per hour in a 30 miles per hour zone. d. On or about 4 Jun 97, the applicant was verbally counseled for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time. e. On or about 22 Aug 97, he received an LOC for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time. f. On or about 8 Jan 98, Security Police was called to the applicant’s room for playing music too loud in his dorm room. g. On or about 29 Jan 98, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and the establishment of an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) for failure to follow a direct order. h. On or about 10 Feb 98, he received an LOR which was placed in his UIF, for failure to go to a scheduled appointment. i. On or about 11 Feb 98, the applicant received an LOC which was placed in his UIF, for failing to comply with AFI 36- 2903, Dress and Appearance, in that he was unshaven. j. On or about 4 Mar 97, the applicant received an LOR for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time. On 24 Mar 98, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and his right to consult with legal counsel and submit statements on his own behalf. On 27 Mar 98, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant elected to submit statements on his behalf. On 2 Apr 98, the action was found to be legally sufficient and subsequently, the discharge authority concurred with the commander’s recommendation. On 9 Apr 98, the applicant was furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, and was credited with 2 years, 7 months, and 23 days of active service. On 23 Jan 04, the Discharge Review Board (DRB) denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge. The Board concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. On 8 Oct 15, a request for post-service information 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 F). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant was afforded every opportunity to overcome his deficiencies, however, the unit’s efforts proved unsuccessful. The commander concluded the applicant was incompatible with the discipline and standards required of an Air Force member. Therefore, the separation program designator (SPD) code and narrative reason for separation are correct and in accordance with Department of Defense and Air Force instructions. The applicant’s service characterization is also correct. Per AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, this type of separation is warranted when significant negative aspects of the airman’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the airman’s military career. It was concluded that all of the instances of misconduct outweighed any positive aspects of his brief military career. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s request, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The Medical Consultant considered the applicant’s contention that his instances of misconduct were related to injuries he sustained in a motor vehicle accident and the medications he was prescribed; and, thus, warrants an upgrade of discharge and by reason of a physical [or mental] disability. The Medical Consultant did note the applicant continued to experience lumbar pain from the time of his injury in February 1997 through at least June 1997; albeit with an intervening period of apparent recovery after at least two trials of physical therapy. Due to its recurrence and persistence the applicant requested and received referral for an “expert” opinion regarding his pain. He also received additional evaluations and treatment of his spine after leaving military service. No evidence is supplied to indicate lingering profile restrictions that warranted an alternative cause for career termination. The Consultant took note that the applicant was prescribed antihistamines and a muscle relaxant during March 1997 to treat nasal congestion and his muscle spasms; both which are known for side effects of drowsiness. While use of the aforementioned medications may effect an individual’s alertness or sleep/wake cycle at a given time [if fully compliant], coupled with instances when his pain kept him up at night, a significant number of the applicant’s infractions bear no definitive association with either the injuries he sustained [absent a psychotic disorder or cognitive impairment due to head trauma] or the medications he was prescribed. Specifically, while the applicant may have reported late to duty due to interference with his sleep/wake cycle, the Medical Consultant found no evidence to indicate existence of a mental deficit or functional impairment that bears a causal or mitigating relationship with the decision to twice go unshaven, to drive in excess of the posted speed limit, to play loud music in the dormitory, fail to follow a direct order to return to local area to correct a problem with his leave, or fail to attend a scheduled dental appointment. Moreover, with respect for the applicant’s desire for a medical separation, none of his service medical evidence has proven to warrant referral for Medical Evaluation Board processing as a compensable disability, IAW AFI 48-123, Medical Examinations and Standards, or 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, and Separation; nor for alternative processing as a “dual-action” review by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council. A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 11 Sep 15 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 an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. In the interest of justice, we also considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, in the absence of any evidence related to the applicant’s post-service activities, there is no way for us to determine if the applicant’s accomplishments since leaving the service are sufficiently meritorious to overcome the misconduct for which he was discharged. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought. 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 documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-05223 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Dec 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 28 Jan 15. Exhibit D. Memorandum, SAF/MRBC, dated 3 Sep 15. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Sep 15. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Oct 15.