RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04126 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His narrative reason for separation be changed from misconduct to a medical discharge. 2. He be authorized to use his Montgomery GI (MGI) Bill. 2. He be reinstated to the rank/grade of E-3. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He has a sleep disorder and he suffered from a broken ankle while in the service. His Defense Counsel’s response was not considered for medical reasons. Additionally, his work ethic was not considered during the Article 15 process and there was no justification for his rank reduction. The Article 15 is incomplete and unsigned. Previous applications to upgrade his discharge were denied. He was unable to submit final documentation to the Board as he does not have medical insurance to receive care. In support of the appeal, the applicant provides his counsel’s response to his Article 15, excerpts from his medical records and Discharge Review Board correspondence. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 19 August 1998. On 29 November 1999, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to discharge him from the Air Force for minor disciplinary infractions. Specifically, the applicant received an Article 15 for unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon; two Letters of Reprimand for lying to his supervisor and being late for work three times, and falling asleep during a test; and a Letter of Counseling for being late for work twice. The applicant waived his right to consult counsel and to submit matters on his behalf. On 6 December 1999, the staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient. On 9 December 1999, the commander directed the applicant be separated with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He was discharged on 15 December 1999 for misconduct. He was credited with 1 year, 3 months and 27 days of active duty service. The Air Force Discharge Review Board reviewed the applicant’s case on 9 April 2002 and concluded no change in his discharge was warranted. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The applicant requests a medical discharge. Although he suffered an ankle sprain during his service, it was not determined to impose a permanent impediment to duty warranting medical separation. The diagnosis of Personality Disorder falls under a group of mental conditions that are not considered disabilities. As such, it also would not qualify him for medical separation. The applicant was prescribed a sleep aid (Ambien) which could have contributed to his difficulty rising for work. However, the applicant’s misconduct also involved incidents that could not be attributed to the underlying sleep disturbance, if it existed. If the totality of the applicant’s misconduct, as contended by Defense Counsel, is attributed to his sleep disorder, the applicant still would have been at risk for a general discharge. If the Board considers changing the narrative reason for separation to Personality Disorder, it may pose a similarly, certainly not better, detriment to the applicant in terms of employment. Should the Board choose the alternative action, then an honorable service characterization should accompany this action in order to avoid detrimental action. The Medical Consultant found insufficient evidence of an error or injustice to warrant the desired change of record. The BCMR Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6 September 2012, for review and comment within 15 days (Exhibit D). 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 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. We carefully considered the available evidence of record; however, we found no indication the actions taken to effect the applicant’s discharge was improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing instructions. Therefore we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Since we have found no error in the processing of his discharge, his request for reinstatement to the grade of E-3 is also denied. Additionally, the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that warrants favorable consideration of his request for the MGI Bill. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis 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 BCMR Docket Number BC-2011-04126 in Executive Session on 16 October 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dtd 19 Sep 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Record. Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dtd 9 Aug 12. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dtd 6 Sep 12. Panel Chair