RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03887

 						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be amended to reflect a medical discharge and his narrative reason for separation be changed to reflect “Fell down stairs at BX.”

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His original DD Form 214 reflected “Fell down stairs at BX” which was the reason for his discharge.  However, his DD Form 214 was illegally covered with correction fluid and the words “Marginal performance at onset of duty” was typed in to discredit his character of service after he almost lost his life at Lackland AFB, TX while on active duty.

He has been diagnosed with degenerative disk disease.  He has curvature of the spine and the impression of a cement stair on his back.  He provides medical information, to include his MRI and list of medications prescribed for the pain in his spine from the injury he incurred in 2001.  He also provides information on his seizure condition which may or may not have been caused by the accident.  

The applicant provides a medical progress note dated 12 March 2008 which states he was living at a VA shelter but was not eligible for benefits because he was discharged too soon.  He was discharged because of an injury which happened while in the Armed Forces and on Armed Forces property.  He is appealing the denial of benefits.  

In further support of his request, he provides a copy of a medical summary from Cooley Dickinson Hospital dated 2 January 2015 which states he was diagnosed with mood disorder, polysubstance misuse disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, chronic back pain and history of seizures.  

In a letter to the Secretary of Defense dated 3 July 2015, he states his problems began in 2001 while he was living at the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) facility in Leeds, MA.  Without his original DD Form 214 reflecting the reason for his discharge, the medical department would not help him.  He obtained a copy of his DD Form 214 which reflected the reason for his discharge had been edited.  He was assured before leaving the base he would be able to get social security.  Now 33 years later, he is suffering and unable to get help from the military.  

In a letter dated 26 March 2016 to the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF), he states he was honorably discharged for medical reasons and was never paid.   

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 14 October 1981.  

The Chronological Record of Medical Care note dated 16 October 2001, states the applicant was treated in the Emergency Room at Wilford Hall Medical Center (WHMC).  The reason for the treatment is reflected as “passed out on stairs and fell.”   The applicant reported he had two seizures at ages 2 and 15.  The Consultation Sheet to the Existed Prior to Service (EPTS) Clinic states the applicant had a past history of a seizure disorder.   He had two episodes of seizures and had been evaluated with EEG, brain scan and prescribed phenobarbital and Dilantin (age 15).  It further stated “normal neuro exam.”  

The applicant’s training record reflects that on 20 October 1981, he was counseled for an unsatisfactory grade for the first week of training in attitude/adaptability.  It stated he was deficient in self-discipline/motivation and was immature and could not follow simple instructions.  He displayed no military bearing and had to be constantly corrected.  His Military Training Instructor (MTI) also referred him to the Mental Health Clinic for evaluation.

According to the ATC Form 582, The Mental Health Evaluation of Active Duty Air Force Personnel, dated 21 October 1981, the evaluating physician recommended the applicant be immediately discharged as he had not matured enough to handle pressure or responsibilities and that he lacked the qualities to be a good and productive airmen.  It also stated he had a seizure disorder and had reported having two seizures while at Basic Military Training (BMT).  He was afraid of having further seizures and hurting himself if returned to duty.  

On 22 October 1981, the applicant’s commander notified him of her intent to recommend he be discharged from the Air Force for marginal performance.   

On 26 October 1981, the staff judge advocate found the recommendation for discharge legally sufficient and the discharge authority approved the discharge.    

On 26 October 1981, the applicant was honorably discharged with a narrative reason for separation of “Marginal performer assigned to initial training.”  He served 13 days of active duty service.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibits C thru E.     

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2STM-SEP recommends denial.  The applicant has not filed a timely petition.  It has been 34 years since his discharge and he did not provide a valid reason for the delay in timely filing his application.  Based on the documentation on file in his record, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  There is no evidence of an error or injustice in the discharge processing.  

The applicant’s commander determined that his presence was creating an administrative burden to the command due to his unwillingness to follow instructions.  The commander was informed that the applicant was a constant deterrent to the unit and teamwork effort of the flight.  He demonstrated no desire to train or follow detailed instructions given to him.  It was concluded the applicant lacked self-pride, motivation, discipline and the ability to do simple tasks.  As a result of his marginal performance, the commander concluded discharge was appropriate.   

DPTSTM-SEP is unable to confirm or deny the applicant’s contention that correction fluid or “white-out” was used to falsify the remarks on his original DD Form 214 as the records reviewed were scanned copies of the original documents.  However, it is not standard policy for comments such as “fell down stairs at BX” to be placed on the remarks section of a DD Form 214.  The remarks section is normally used for indicating the distribution of the additional copies of the completed DD Form 214.  However, they can confirm from reviewing the applicant’s record that the narrative reason for separation and the Separation Program Designator (SPD) code listed on his DD Form 214 are consistent with the circumstances surrounding the reason for his discharge and are therefore correct as indicated.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2STM-SEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPFDD recommends denial.  The evidence provided does not reflect the applicant experienced a service-related illness or injury that would have rendered him unfit for continued military service.  Furthermore, the applicant’s claim exceeds the requirement to file in a timely matter. 

A review of the case file does corroborate the applicant experienced a fall during his short time in service; however, there is no indication he suffered any permanent injuries or residuals from the fall that would have rendered him unfit for continued military service.  Regarding the applicant’s statement that he can provide the Board with MRI reports and medications prescribed, the Board would only be able to consider medical documents relating to his alleged fall that were created at the time of the incident since disability processing is based on a “snapshot in time” and does not take into account any exacerbations or progressions of a disability that may have occurred following the service member’s release from active duty.  

The medical notes indicate the applicant experienced dizziness which resulted in the fall.  There is little information regarding treatment although it appears he was referred for a neuro exam.  There are no other documents indicating any follow-up care was required.  Indeed, the Report of Medical History dated 22 October 1981, Item 8, Statement of Examinee’s Present Health and Medications Currently Used, indicates his present health and medications as “Good, no meds used.”  Item 25, Physician’s Summary and Elaboration of All Pertinent Data, further states “I have reviewed the statement in the, history and find that the examinee has not experienced a significant illness or injury since induction.  The examinee is cleared medically for separation.”   

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFDD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denial.  The applicant failed to provide evidence his DD Form 214 was falsified or altered.  There is no evidence of alteration of the DD Form 214 and the document is consistent in data and prepared in accordance with governing directives and policies in force at the time of preparation.

A complete copy of the DP2STM evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 1 June 2016 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD:

Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  After a careful review of the applicant's contentions, documentation submitted in support of the request, and the available evidence of record, we are not convinced the applicant has provided sufficient evidence for us to conclude that he is the victim of an error or injustice.  We also note the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603.  Therefore, because we do not find it would be in the interest of justice to recommend granting relief, and the applicant has offered no plausible reason for the delay in filing the application, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file the application.  Accordingly, we find the application untimely.

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness.  It is the decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely.

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-03887 in Executive Session on 8 September 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
 
     , Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-03887 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 4 September 2015 and 
  19 October 2015, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM-SEP, dated 
			  8 February 2016.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPFDD, dated 24 February 2016.
	Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 10 May 2016.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 May 2016.  

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.