RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05669 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. His narrative reason for separation (Misconduct – Minor Infractions) be changed to medical. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: A Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rating decision dated 31 July 2013 awarded him compensation for primary insomnia at 30 percent. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 January 2008. The applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, Misconduct (Minor Infractions). The specific reasons are that the applicant received two Records of Individual Counseling, one Letter of Counseling, one Letter of Reprimand and numerous Article 15s for failure to report to his place of duty from 7 October 2009 to 9 November 2011. He was advised of his rights in this matter and elected to submit a statement on his own behalf. In a legal review of the case file, the staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended discharge. The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The applicant was discharged on 18 January 2012. He served 4 years and 17 days on active duty and credited with 2 years, 10 months and 14 days of foreign service. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. DPSOR states based on the applicant's overall performance, the discharge authority approved a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. According to AFI 36-3208, Paragraph 1.18.2, a general discharge is appropriate when “significant negative aspects of the airman’s conduct or performance of duty outweighs positive aspects of the airman’s military record.” The discharge authority determined that the applicant’s misconduct in this case clearly outweighed the positive aspects of his service. Therefore, the separation program designator (SPD) code, narrative reason for separation, and service characterization are all correct as indicated on the applicant's DD Form 214 and are consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant provided no evidence that an error or injustice occurred in the processing of his discharge. The DPSOR complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s petition to change the reason for discharge to medical. However, the Board may consider a partial grant to upgrade the applicant's character of service to honorable and his narrative reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant states under the presumption of regularity, particularly noting the repetitive nature of the applicant's infractions, the Medical Consultant did not readily find evidence of an error or injustice in the discharge action. Additionally, although the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) has chosen to assign the applicant disability compensation for the diagnosis of Primary Insomnia, the symptoms displayed by the applicant during his military service were attributed to his Alcohol Related Disorders and personal/occupational stressors, resulting in the diagnosis of Adjustment Insomnia; neither which is a medical condition qualifying for processing as a compensable disability through the military Disability Evaluation System. Specifically, the military health care provider determined that the applicant's Insomnia seemed to be “associated with personal and occupational stressors and alcohol usage” and that his “alcohol usage increased the sleep fragmentation.” The applicant's insomnia was also not associated with other potentially unfitting compensable conditions, e.g., Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Anxiety Disorder; nor an untreated obstructive sleep apnea. Operating under a different set of laws, Title 38, United States Code, the DVA is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition it determines service incurred; without regard to its demonstrated impact upon a former service member’s fitness to serve or the narrative reason for release from military service. Nevertheless, viewing the totality of the applicant’s case through the lens of an Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB), the Medical Consultant opines the applicant's self-motivation to seek early intervention via the ADAPT program, his successful completion of the program, and his personal and occupational stressors resulting in Adjustment Insomnia, the Board may consider these under matters of mitigation and extenuation in upgrading his character of service. In any case, the Medical Consultant opines the applicant has not met the burden of proof that warrants changing his reason for discharge to medical. The applicant may yet to decide to withdraw his application to the BCMR and apply for a personal appearance before the Air Force DRB, utilizing DD Form 293. Doing so will allow him to exercise this alternative administrative remedy, gain access to legal counsel, present witnesses who may speak on his behalf, and present any post-service evidence to support his contentions. If denied an upgrade by the DRB, the applicant will preserve his eligibility to apply for relief via the AFBCMR. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 12 September 2014, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit C). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 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 an error or injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence of record, it is our opinion that given the circumstances surrounding his separation from the Air Force, the character of service and narrative reason for separation assigned were proper and in compliance with the appropriate instructions. We took note of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s recommendation; however, we agree with the AFPC/DPSOR and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. 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 the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an 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-2013-05669 in Executive Session on 4 December 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-05669 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 December 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Available Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 14 January 2014. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 13 June 2014. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 September 2014.