RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01197 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. His discharge was due to a brain tumor he had while on active duty. His records stated his discharge was due to his short-term memory being affected by a tumor. 2. Since his discharge, he has been granted 60% service connected disability with unemployability by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and letters from the DVA. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 8 January 1979, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force and was promoted up to the grade of airman first class. On 9 September 1980, he was demoted to the grade of airman, with a date of rank and effective date of 8 July 1980. On 8 February 1981, his commander notified him that he was initiating discharge action against him for unsuitability. The reasons for the commander’s action were the applicant’s defective attitude, his inability to expend effort constructively as evidenced by the applicant’s failure to carry out duties commensurate with his grade and experience, his downward trend in duty performance, failure to maintain military standards, and his continued failure to perform his duties in the prescribed manner as indicated by a number of adverse incidents. The commander recommended the applicant receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The applicant was also advised that an evaluation officer would be appointed to review the discharge file. The applicant submitted a rebuttal statement in his own behalf. The evaluation officer recommended the applicant be discharged and furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge certificate as recommended by the commander. The evaluation officer also recommended the applicant not be considered for rehabilitation under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program. The Assistant Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the entire case file, found no irregularities and determined the case was legally sufficient for the applicant to be discharged. On 24 February 1981, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged and furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge certificate. The discharge authority considered probation and rehabilitation for the applicant but decided it was not appropriate. The applicant was discharged on 27 February 1981 and was credited with 2 years, 1 month, and 20 days of service. According to documents furnished by the applicant, the DVA awarded him service connected disability compensation at the 100 percent rate effective on or before 1 July 2005. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of the applicant’s request. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. Based on documents on file in the master personnel records, the applicant’s discharge, to include the narrative reason for separation and separation code, was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge authority. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical Consultant states he found no evidence of a disqualifying medical condition during the applicant’s military service that warranted processing him through the Disability Evaluation System. The Medical Consultant opines that had there been a progressive organic cause of the applicant’s pattern of behavior during his military service, e.g., a slow growing brain tumor, his maladaptive behavior would likely have continued unabated and without the significant intervening period of behavioral improvement and a reasonably successful employment history. Although the DVA established a nexus between the applicant’s brain tumor and his period of service, the Medical Consultant finds this insufficient for a determination that his pattern of misconduct during military service was the direct result of the tumor discovered in 1991. Thus, the mere fact that an applicant has been retroactively assigned service connection and subsequently awarded disability compensation for a medical condition does not substantiate that such a condition was a diagnosable illness during military service or that it should have been the cause for career termination. The Medical Consultant further opines that had the applicant’s fainting episodes been proven to be attributed to a temporal lobe tumor so soon after entering military service, acknowledging its recognized slow growing pattern, it is likely the medical condition would have been determined to have existed prior to military service. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the DPSOS and BCMR Medical Consultant evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 17 December 2010 for review and comment within 30 days. To date a response has not been received (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 error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the BCMR Medical Consultant and the Air Force office of primary responsiblitiy and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. _________________________________________________________________ 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-2010-01197 in Executive Session on 25 January 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Mar 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 5 Nov 10. Exhibit D. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 14 Nov 10. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Dec 10. Panel Chair