RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02205
					        INDEX CODE 110.02, 110.01, 100.06, 110.03
	 						COUNSEL:  None

							HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) and Separation Program Designator (SPD) codes be changed, and his separation date be changed to reflect three years of service, so he may receive medical treatment for service disabilities and be eligible for Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has four [sic] years of honorable service, but his DD 214 indicating he was discharged for unsatisfactory service affects promotion opportunities.  His infractions were trivial and the narrative reason for his separation should be changed.  He has matured and wants to join the Reserves and serve.  As for his separation date, he was not supposed to separate until after 23 Jul 04.  His dental work was incomplete and he was not given the opportunity for an evaluation for his disability.  He was anxious to separate and skipped the root canal.  He was not given the care he needed when he separated and lost his tooth.  He was not given an evaluation for a herniated disc that resulted from a vehicle accident while he was in the Air Force.  He lives with a service-connected disability and a lost tooth because he did not get the care he deserved.  He suffered mental problems and stress.  The Air Force did not give him credit for his leave or travel time to his home of record (HOR), which would have given him three years of active service.  He was pushed out of the service so he could be denied MGIB benefits.  

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Public Law 97-35, The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, and Title 38, USC, Section 1712, limits eligibility to Outpatient Dental Treatment currently provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).  Eligibility for DVA Dental Treatment requires meeting the following criteria:

	-- Member must serve at least 180 days of active duty.
	-- Member must apply to the DVA for required treatment within 90 days of discharge or release from active duty.
	-- Member’s DD Form 214 must contain a statement that a complete dental examination and appropriate dental service and treatment were not provided by the Armed Forces within 90 days prior to discharge/release.

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 23 Jul 97 for a period of four years and assigned to the 81st Surgical Operations Squadron at Kessler, AFB, MS, as an orthotic apprentice.  [Note:  According to HQ AFPC/DPPAT (Exhibit D), DOD records indicate the applicant accepted MGIB enrollment on 23 Jul 97.  However, the DD Form 2366, MGIB Act of 1984, indicates the applicant accepted MGIB enrollment on 4 Aug 97.]

On 20 Nov 98, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failure to report to duty on 16 Nov 98.  His supervisor had advised him not to proceed with his trip to Texas but to report to duty on 16 Nov 98.  The applicant was advised his punishment could have been greater because of his past discipline problems at Lackland AFB and an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) [no further information].  He was warned his stripe could have been taken away.  In addition to the LOC, the applicant was ordered to attend one day of Correctional Custody Orientation and had one day of leave charged for the duty day missed.

By Special Order dated 25 Nov 98, the applicant was promoted to the grade of airman first class with a date of rank of 23 Nov 98.

A 7 May 99 Memorandum for the Record (MFR) reported the applicant received an LOC for failing to attend a mandatory monthly run.

On 13 Apr 99, the applicant’s Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period 23 Jul 97 through 22 Mar 99, rendered an overall rating of 4.

A 27 Jul 99 LOC indicated the applicant failed to complete a direct-order tasking on 19 Jul 99 and noted this was an ongoing trend.  The applicant received another LOC on 28 Sep 99 for failing a dormitory room inspection on 27 Sep 99, his second violation.  The applicant also received an LOC on 9 Nov 99 for a 60-day delinquent debt ($39.00) with the Base Exchange.  The applicant did not rebut these LOCs.

A supervisor’s 1 Mar 00 MFR reported that the applicant was in arrears with Republic Finance for $584.00 (including penalties and legal fees) and, despite efforts by the company to work with him, was unresponsive.  As a result, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) on 2 Mar 00.  This LOR also mentioned the applicant had received another LOR for improper use of his Government Credit Card.  The applicant did not rebut.

On 20 Apr 00, the applicant’s EPR for the period 23 Mar 99 through 2 Mar 00, rendered an overall rating of 3, and the indorser commented that the applicant required more experience, initiative, and knowledge application to maximize his potential as an Air Force asset. 

A 7 Jun 00 MFR reported the duty section told the applicant to contact his supervisor about extending his 1-5 Jun 00 leave to complete repairs on his car.  The applicant spoke to his supervisor at 1400 on 5 Jun 00.  The supervisor disapproved the request and ordered the applicant to return to work on 6 Jun 00.  However, the applicant reported to work at 0700 on 7 Jun 00, after returning to the local area around 1900 on 6 Jun 00.  The applicant received an LOR on 14 Jun 00 for failing to return to his appointed place of duty.  The applicant did not rebut.

On 29 Jun 00, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend an honorable discharge for unsatisfactory duty performance.  The LORs and LOCs were cited.  The applicant waived his option to consult counsel and his right to submit statements.

On 30 Jun 00, the applicant signed a DD Form 2697, Report of Medical Assessment, indicating he was treated for a slight herniated disc following a vehicular accident, did not have any conditions for which he did not seek medical care or which limited his ability to work in his primary military specialty or require geographic/assignment limitations, did not have any dental problems, did not have questions/concerns about his health, and did not intend at that time to seek a DVA disability.

On 5 Jul 00, the commander recommended the applicant’s discharge with probation and rehabilitation (P&R).  Legal review found the case sufficient and recommended the applicant be discharged without P&R with an honorable characterization.  The discharge authority approved the recommendation on 14 Jul 00.

The applicant’s out-processing documents indicated he was not provided a complete dental examination and all appropriate dental service treatment by the Armed Forces within 90 days prior to his discharge, and that he was briefed on his limited dental benefits on 18 Jul 00.  

On 18 Jul 00, after 2 years, 11 months and 26 days of active service, the applicant was honorably discharged in the grade of airman first class with an SPD code of JHJ (Unsatisfactory Performance) and an RE code of 2C (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge).  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

HQ AFPC/DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discharge authority’s discretion. The applicant has not substantiated any errors or injustices and his appeal should be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPAT advises the DVA may award MGIB education benefits to individuals who leave active duty prior to completing a full term of active service.  The benefit, if any, is determined by the number of months served and the separation reason.  The law provides for benefits for an individual who separates with less than a full term of service if the reason for discharge is Secretarial Authority, hardship, service-connected disability, disability existing prior to service (EPTS), physical or mental condition that interferes with duty, or reduction in force (RIF).

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF EVALUATION: 

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 1 Oct 04 for review and comment within 30 days.  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 timely filed.

3.	Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice to warrant partial relief.  The applicant has not established to our satisfaction that the RE and SPD codes he received were unjustified, erroneous, or outside the discharge authority’s discretion.  Further, the applicant indicated on his 30 Jun 00 Medical Assessment that he had been treated for a slight herniated disc; did not have any conditions for which he did not seek medical care, or which limited his ability to work in his primary military specialty or required geographic/assignment limitations; did not have any dental problems; did not have questions or concerns about his health; and did not intend at that time to seek a DVA disability.  Thus we fail to see any medical basis for changing the reason for the applicant’s discharge.  However, we note he was only four days shy of having three full years of active duty.  While his separation date may have been beyond his control, we are persuaded he could have been separated on 22 Jul 00, when he completed three years of active service and he may be eligible for MGIB benefits.  We would emphasize to the applicant that his entitlement, if any, to MGIB benefits will be determined by the DVA.  Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected to the extent indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he was not honorably discharged on 18 July 2000 but on that date he continued to served on active duty until 22 July 2000 at which time he was honorably discharged.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 18 November 2004 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-02205 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Jul 04, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 14 Sep 04.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAT, dated 22 Sep 04.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Oct 04.

AFBCMR BC-2004-02205

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to        , be corrected to show that he was not honorably discharged on 18 July 2000 but on that date he continued to served on active duty until 22 July 2000 at which time he was honorably discharged.