RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02696 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry code of 2B “Involuntarily discharged with a general discharge” be changed to a code that would allow him to reenlist in the Air Force or another branch of service. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He had a medical condition (Graves’ Disease and Hyperthyroidism) prior to his discharge that the Air Force never treated him for nor followed-up on. At his discharge physical his summary sheets clearly state that he was diagnosed with unexplained hypertension, and needed follow-up by the Air Force and to be further evaluated. This never happened. Had this happened it would have proven he had a hyperthyroid problem known as Graves’ Disease. Graves’ Disease is triggered by stress in which the thyroid secretes too much of the body’s hormones that control the cardiovascular system and attacks the logic center of ones’ brain. This explains his inability to reason and make rationale and logical choices and decisions. He was a great Airman and would like another chance to serve. He has been treated successfully for Graves’ Disease and is medially cured. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, and copies of his service and medical records. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 24 Jan 06, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force, and was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class. On 12 Dec 07, the applicant was notified by his squadron commander that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for a pattern of misconduct, conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. The reasons for the proposed action were: 1) On 12 Oct 07, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for several offenses to include: a) He between on or about (a/o) 12 Sep 07 and o/a 14 Sep 07, was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he willfully failed to immediately report an accident involving two government owned vehicles to the law enforcement desk, as it was his duty to do so; b) He did o/a 14 Sep 07, through neglect, damage by collision two government owned vehicles of a value of more than $500.00, military property of the United States, the amount of said damage being in the sum of about $2,761.11; c) He was the driver of the vehicle at the time of an accident in which said vehicle was involved, and having knowledge of said accident, did, between o/a 12 Sep 07 and o/a 14 Sep 07, wrongfully leave the scene of the accident without making his identity known; d) He o/a 18 Sep 07, was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he willfully failed to immediately report an accident involving a government vehicle to the law enforcement desk, as was his duty to do so.; e) He, a passenger in a vehicle at the time of an accident in which said vehicle was involved, and having knowledge of said accident, did, o/a 18 Sep 07 by neglect, assist the driver of said vehicle in wrongfully leaving the scene of the accident without providing assistance to the occupant who had been struck by the said vehicle. Punishment imposed was a reduction in grade to airman basic, with reduction below airman being suspended until 11 Apr 08, unless sooner vacated, and 45 days of extra duty. 2) On 23 Oct 07, the applicant stole a Motorola RAZR cell phone, of a value of about $139.99, the property of another airman. For this misconduct, on 11 Dec 07, the commander vacated the suspended portion of his NJP and he was reduced to the grade of airman basic, with a date of rank of 12 Oct 07. On 17 Dec 07, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and waived his right to legal counsel, and to submit statements in his own behalf. On 18 Dec 07, the base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support the basis for separation. The discharge authority approved the separation and directed an under honorable conditions (general) discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 4 Jan 08, the applicant was discharged in the grade of airman basic, by reason of misconduct and received an RE code of 2B. He served on active duty for a period of 1 year, 11 months, and 11 days. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states the applicant’s RE code (2B) is correct based on his involuntary discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) character of service. The applicant has provided no proof of an error or injustice in reference to his RE code. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice to warrant a change to his discharge characterization. DPSOS states based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge, to include his service characterization, was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of a change in his assigned RE code. The BCMR Medical Consultant in addressing the applicant’s request for an RE code change notes that Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 6130.03, Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction in the Military Service, contains a listing of medical conditions that are disqualifying for entry into military service and under Endocrine and Metabolic conditions is listed current or past history of hyperthyroidism. Additionally, listed among disqualifying Learning, Psychiatric, and Behavioral disorders is attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Exceptions to the latter policy statement include: (1) The applicant has not required an Individualized Education Program or work accommodations since the age of 14; (2) There is no history of co-morbid mental disorders; (3) The applicant has never taken more than a single daily dosage of medication or has not been prescribed medication for this condition for more than 24 cumulative months after the age of 14; (4) During periods off of medical after the age of 14, the applicant has been able to maintain at least a 2.0 grade point average without accommodations; (5) Documentation from the applicant’s prescribing provider that continued medication is not required for acceptable occupational or work performance; and (6) The applicant is required to enter service and pass Service- specific training periods with no prescribed medication for ADHD. The psychiatric letter of 11 Jul 09, indicates the applicant sought help at “Presbyterian Counseling Center and was prescribed Lexapro and Strattera for anxiety and for attention deficit disorder. It is not known whether he meets any other exception to policy criteria. Thus, even if the Board elected to change the applicant’s RE code, he would likely require a waiver via HQ AETC/SGP, if applying for Air Force approval, for both ADHD and the history of hyperthyroidism, in order to be accepted into military service; notwithstanding the need to be ultimately cleared again by MEPS medical officials for entry to military service. The cause of Graves’ Disease is believed to be of autoimmune origin, with possible genetic and environmental factors considered. The Medical Consultant agrees the expression of human behavior and mood at a given time may be influenced by endocrine function, through the action of various brain neurotransmitters as intermediaries. The Consultant opines that had the applicant been diagnosed prior to separation, it is possible he would have been retained on active duty until his medical condition was brought under reasonable control, or he was processed through the Disability Evaluation System (DES). If found unfit, although rarely for treated thyroid conditions, he would have been confronted with a “dual action” review by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council for determining the appropriate reason for separation (administrative versus medical) and character of service. If the Board determines the applicant’s hyperthyroid made him vulnerable to commit the misconduct, then the Consultant opines it would be appropriate to change both the narrative reason for separation and to upgrade the character of service. However, the Consultant finds difficulty establishing a definitive causal relationship between the applicant’s admitted conscious decisions not to report two vehicular accidents, one which he himself characterized as “stupid and immature,” and to steal (although initially denied) a cell phone, and then to attribute these acts to an undiagnosed hyperthyroidism. Indeed, the applicant’s ADHD may have, as much, influenced his poor impulse control and decision-making. Therefore, while rendering the benefit of doubt for mitigation and extenuation involving the applicant’s misconduct, the Consultant opines it does not exonerate him of the offenses committed. The applicant has not met his burden of proof of an error or injustice that warrants the desired change in RE code. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: His USAF physical dated 12 Dec 07, clearly states it was recommended he have a follow-up to determine the source of his high blood pressure and extreme weight loss. He is certain had this occurred, his physical, emotional and mental health issues in regards to Graves’ Disease would have been diagnosed and proper treatment followed. He supplied the Board with expert medical information from his Endocrinologist, and a full psychiatric evaluation, that fully support the medical problems, mental confusion, and the lack of being able to make correct logical decisions that occurred from the Spring 2007 to his date of discharge. He was an outstanding airman until his mind and body became compromised due to his undiagnosed Graves’ Disease in 2007. He feels his military problems can be traced to the effects of this disease. His medical providers clearly stated this was triggered by the stress of his destructive marriage, his baby daughter being born with a life threatening heart defect, and his constant struggle to meet his monthly financial responsibilities. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely filed. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, we are not persuaded that he has been the victim of an error or injustice. We find no evidence to indicate the applicant’s RE code was in error or contrary to the prevailing instruction. The RE code which was issued at the time of the applicant’s separation accurately reflects the circumstances of his separation and we do not find this code to be in error or unjust. In this respect we note the applicant’s request is centered on the fact that while he was in the service he was suffering from a medical condition that he believes may have made him vulnerable to commit the misconduct. He states he was successfully treated for Graves’ Disease and is medically cured, and would like the opportunity to serve in the military. After considering the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant, we accept 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 persuasive evidence indicating the RE code is erroneous or unjust; we conclude that no basis exists to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. _________________________________________________________________ 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 Docket Number BC-2010-02696 in Executive Session on 4 Oct 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 Aug 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 21 Jul 11. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 7 Feb 11. Exhibit E. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, 17 Jun 11. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Jul 11. Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Aug 11. Panel Chair