AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NO: 96-02129 
COUNSEL : 
HEARING DESIRED:  No 

E T  2  8 1997 

Applicant  requests  that  his  records  be  corrected  to  show  that  he 
received a medical discharge.  Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. 

The  appropriate  Air  Force  offices evaluated  applicant's  request  and 
provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be 
denied  (Exhibit C) . 
The  advisory  opinions  were  forwarded  to  the 
applicant for review and response  (Exhibit D) .  Applicant's  response is 
attached at Exhibit E. 
The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of 
justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 

After  careful  consideration of  applicant's  request  and  the  available 
evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice 
to warrant  corrective  action.  The  facts  and  opinions  stated  in  the 
advisory opinions appear to be based on the evidence of record and have 
not been adequately rebutted by applicant.  Absent persuasive evidence 
applicant was denied rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations 
were not  followed, or appropriate standards were not applied, we  find 
no basis to disturb the existing record. 

Accordingly, applicant's request is denied. 

The  Board  staff  is  directed  to  inform  applicant  of  this  decision. 
Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and will 
o n l y   be  reconsidered  upon  the  presentation  of  new  relevant  evidence 
which  was  not  reasonably  available  at  the  time  the  application  was 
filed. 

Members  of the Board Mr. Henry C. Saunders, Mr. Joseph T. Wagner,  and 
Mr.  Richard  A.  Peterson,  considered  this  application  on  16 October 
1997, in  accordance with  the provisions of 
Force  Instruction  36- 
2603, and the governing statute, 10, U.S.C. 

/ 

f 

RY C. SAUNDERS 

P ne1 Chairman, 

/ 

Exhibits : 
A.  Applicant's DD Form 149 
B.  Available Master Personnel Records 
C.  Advisory Opinions 
D. 
E.  Applicant's Response 

AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions 

10 ADr 97 

Memorandum for the AFBCMR 

From:  BCMR Medical Consultant 

1535 Command Drive, EE Wing, 3rd Floor 
Andrews AFB MD  20762-7002 

Subject: Application for Correction of Military Records 

Applicant's entire case file has been reviewed and is forwarded with the following 

findings, conclusions and recommendations. 

REQUESTED ACTION:  The applicant was administratively discharged under the 
provisions of AFM 39-12, Sec A,  Para 2-4b on 14 Apr 82 after 2y  1Om OOd  on active 
duty.  He now applies requesting the records be changed to show a "medical discharge" 

FACTS:  The records indicate the applicant has a personality disorder which 

interfered with his military dutiedtraining for which he was administratively discharged. 
Applicant's military record contains numerous disciplinary actions from statements of 
derelict duty on TAC Form 27's, to LetteE of Reprimand (3), to denial of Good Conduct 
Medal from Oct 80 to Jul 81 along with mental health evaluation by competent medical 
authority in Jan 82 in which the personality disorder was delineated.  Applicant's 
contention that a blow to the head by a falling aircraft canopy in Nov 81 was proximate 
cause to his difficulties is not substantiated in the record.  Indeed, all of the disciplinary 
infractions occured prior to that time.  Applicant's "Letter of Evidence" dated 22 Jul 96 
fails to include any information that would alter the facts as found in his record. 

DISCUSSION:  This case was properly evaluated by the evidence of record. There 

is no evidence of error or irregularity in the processing of this case.  Action and 
disposition in this case are proper and reflect compliance with Air Force directives which 
implement the law. 

RECOMMENDATION:  The Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in 

the records is warranted and the application should be denied. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS 

23 May 97 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM: 

AFPC/DPPD 
550 C Street West Ste 06 
Randolph AFB TX  78 150-4708 

REQUESTED ACTION:  Applicant requests his involuntary administrative discharge be 

changed to a  disability discharge. 

FACTS:  Applicant was administratively separated on 14 Apr 82 after serving two years, 

and ten months on active duty.  He was separated for unsuitability under the provisions of 
AFM 39- 12, due to his personality disorder. 

DISCUSSION:  We carefully reviewed the AFBCMR application and verify that the 
applicant was never referred to or considered by the Air Force Disability System under the 
provisions of AFR 35-4.  The purpose of the military disability system is to maintain a fit and 
vital force by separating members who are unable to perform the duties of their grade, ofice, 
rank or rating.  Members who are separated or retired for reason of physical disability may be 
eligible, if otherwise qualified, for certain disability compensations.  Eligibility for disability 
processing is established by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) when that board finds that the 
member may not be qualified for continued military service.  The decision to conduct an MEB is 
made by the medical treatment facility providing care to the member. 

The medical aspects of this case are hlly explained by the Medical Consultant.  We agree 
with his advisory.  There is no evidence of any physical disability which would have justified an 
MEB or Physical Evaluation Board prior to his discharge. 

The reason why an applicant could be found fit by the military and subsequently granted 

a disability rating by the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (DVA) lies in understanding the 
differences between Title 10, USC, and Title 38, USC.  Title 10, USC chapter 61 is the federal 
statute that charges the Service Secretaries with maintaining a fit and vital force.  For an 
individual to be considered unfit, there must be a medical condition so severe that it prevents 
performance of work commensurate with an individual’s rank and experience.  Once this 
determination is made, namely that an individual is unfit, the degree of disability is based on the 
member’s condition at the time of permanent disposition and not upon fbture events.  Congress, 
very wisely, recognized that a person can acquire physical conditions which, although not 

. 

4 

unfitting, alter the individual’s lifestyle and future employability.  With this in mind, Title 38, 
USC which governs the DVA compensation system was written to allow awarding compensation 
ratings for conditions not unfitting for military service.  This is the reason why an individual can 
be considered fit for military duty to the day of separation or retirement and yet receive a 
compensation rating from the DVA for service-connected non-unfitting conditions. 

+

.

$ *  
4 
1

,

> 

 

RECOMMENDATION:  We recommend denial of the applicant’s request.  The applicant 

has not submitted any material or documentation to show that he was unfit due to a physical 
disability under the provisions of Title 10, USC,  at the time of his involuntary separation. 

Directorate of Pers Prog Management