RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00946-1 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His “Reason and Authority” for separation be changed to “Secretarial Authority,” instead of “Personality Disorder.” 2. His diagnosis of Cervical Compressive Myelopathy and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) be considered “unfit” conditions. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should have been medically discharged based on the Air Force medical personnel failing to diagnose his physical spinal cord damage prior to enlistment and during his enlistment. He was born with two extra vertebras resulting in such pain that would give a reason for his Aggressive Personality Disorder. The military physician both intentionally or carelessly overlooked the matter. He reported having trouble sleeping and suffered from depression. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the applicant’s DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, on 2 Dec 70, he enlisted in the Regular Air Force. According to the applicant’s DD Form 214, on 20 Nov 71, he was honorably discharged from active duty under the authority of “Air Force Manual (AFM) 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Personal Abuse of Drugs; Resignation or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service; and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program, paragraph 2-4B (Personality Disorder), Section A, Chapter 2.” He was credited with 11 months and 19 days of total active service. The applicant provides no rationale as to why his failure to timely file should be waived in the interest of justice. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his narrative reason for separation. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was 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. He provided no facts warranting a change to the narrative reason for separation. On 3 Nov 71, the applicant's commander notified him that he was recommending discharge for being diagnosed with "an immature personality, aggressive, a character and behavior disorder." On 3 Nov 71, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge. The case was found legally sufficient. The discharge authority approved the separation and directed the applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation. The complete DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit B. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends approval. The Medical Consultant suggests the applicant’s record be amended to reflect the narrative reason for separation as Secretarial Authority. Based on the applicant’s expansive employment history since leaving the military, it is as likely as not that any unsuitable pattern of behavior present in November 1971, at the age of 19, has evolved into a socially acceptable pattern of behavior. It should also be noted that the applicant’s frequent trouble sleeping and depression is recorded to have begun since 5 Sep 71, nine months after the applicant’s service entry. The fact that a specific date [5 Sep 71] has been identified as the date of onset of the applicant’s troubles, it is not compatible with manifestations of congenital cervical spine defect or obstructive sleep apnea, both diagnosed over three decades later. However, it does suggest some relationship with an acute stressful event may have occurred at or about that time. Furthermore, despite the allegation of failure to properly evaluate, there is no evidence that either the recorded observations warranted a Medical Hold and processing as a medical basis for release from military service. The Board may choose to deny the applicant’s petition based on untimeliness. However, the Board may also choose to change the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority based upon his extensive post-service accomplishments and the burdensome characterization of his service during a youthful period. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reiterates that he has provided positive evidence that he was born with two extra vertebras and this condition presents severe pain and pressure on his spine, to the degree that he could become paralyzed at any time. The evidence he presented proves that he could have become paralyzed at any time during his military service even while sleeping. Therefore, he is seeking compensation for his current medical condition and request that it be noted in his discharge. Additionally, he agrees with the recommendation to change his reason of discharge to Secretarial Authority but also wants it to still show that his discharge was honorable and that he is entitled to all of his benefits (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 an error or injustice to warrant changing his narrative reason for separation. We note that the BCMR Medical Consultant recommends approval suggesting the applicant be given the benefit of the doubt based on his extensive post-service accomplishments and the burdensome characterization of his service during a youthful period. However, based on the evidence it appears that the applicant's discharge was properly adjudicated and we found no evidence which would lead us to believe that his separation was in error or contrary to the governing Air Force instructions. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of DPPRS and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Additionally, the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to warrant changing his medical diagnosis of Cervical Compressive Myelopathy and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) to reflect they were unfitting conditions leading to his discharge. Therefore we conclude the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has been the victim of an error or injustice. In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting any of the relief sought in this application. 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 members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-00946-1 in Executive Session on 14 Jan 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Nov 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPPSR Advisory, dated 4 May 07. Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 11 Sep 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, 26 Sep 14. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Oct 14.