AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILIT 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER: 

96-03293 

COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 
His  administrative  discharge, under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36- 
3207, be set aside and that he be granted a disability discharge, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-3212. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
His commander was told to prefer charges against him even though 
she  (commander) stated  and  documented  that  he  (applicant) had 
self-identified a drug abuse problem.  Applicant states that his 
commander recommended resignation in lieu of charges.  However, 
this request was  denied  in order to punish him.  In August  of 
1995  administrative  actions  were  preferred  against  him  even 
though in April  of  that year he had  a major depressive episode 
and  was  to  be  medically  discharged.  He  states  that  Itserious 
recurring misconductt1 is on his record even though his service is 
characterized as honorable.  The prejudice of the Wing Commander 
is further demonstrated by  the order not  to re-enter Fairchild 
Air Force Base  (AFB). 

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
Applicant was appointed a first lieutenant in the Reserve of the 
Air  Force  on  22  February  1993  and  ordered  to voluntary  active 
duty on 17 March 1993 for a period of 48 months. 
Applicant  was  working  as  a  Staff  Nurse,  Special  Care  Unit 
assigned  to  the  92d  Medical  Group,  Fairchild  Air  Force  Base 
(AFB) , Washington. 
In July 1994, applicant  called his  supervisor and  informed her 
that for the previous six to eight months he had taken drugs out 
investigation was  initiated based  on 
of  the drug  cabinet.  AII 
information  received  indicating  applicant  had  notified  his 
supervisor that he had been illegally using narcotics. 

The  Air  Force  Office  of  Special  Investigations  (AFOSI) 
investigated  the  matters  of  failure  to  obey  an  order  or 
regulation;  drunk  on  duty;  wrongful  use  of  a  controlled 
substance; and, military property of  the United  States  -  sale, 
loss, damage, destruction, or wrongful  disposition.  The AFOSI 
investigation period  of  report  was  from  1 August  -  4  October 
The  investigative  status  was  referred  to  command  for 
1994. 
act ion. 
On 2 August  1995,  applicant's commander recommended to the Wing 
Commander, that action under AFI 36-3206 be initiated against the 
applicant.  The reasons were:  (a) Between on or about 1 December 
1993  and  1  August  1994,  applicant  did,  on  divers  occasions, 
wrongfully  steal  meperdine  (brand  name  Demerol),  military 
property of a value of less than $100.00; (b) Between on or about 
1 December  1993  and  1  August  1994,  applicant  did,  on  divers 
occasions, wrongfully use meperdine, military property of a value 
of  less than $100.00;  (c) Between on or about  12 July 1994 and 
29 July 1994, on divers occasions, applicant did, with intent to 
deceive,  sign  an  official  record,  AF  Form  579,  Controlled 
Substance Register, which  record was false, in that it  did not 
accurately  reflect  the  quantity  of  meperdine  the  applicant 
administered to patients, and was then known to be false; and  (d) 
Between on or about 1 December 1993 and 1 August  1994, applicant 
did,  on  divers  ocsasions, without  proper  authority, willfully 
damage, by  diluting  with  saline  solution, the  drug  meperdine, 
military property of a value of less than $100.00. 
On  2  August  1995,  the  Wing  Staff  Judge  Advocate  reviewed  the 
proposed  separation action  and  found  it  legally  sufficient  to 
support  involuntary  action  for serious or  recurring misconduct 
punishable by  military or civilian authorities and drug  abuse. 
At issue was whether the applicant was capable of rehabilitation. 
The  Commander  recommended  separation  and  did  not  believe 
rehabilitation efforts were warranted. 
On  2 August  1995,  the applicant received notification from the 
Wing Commander that action was being initiated against him under 
AFI  36-3206. 
The  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the 
notification action on 2 August 1995. 
On 18 August  1995,  applicant responded indicating that he would 
comment and submit documentation in his behalf and indicated that 
he had been counseled by the Area Defense Counsel  (ADC). 
On 24 August 1995, the Chief , General Law Division, Headquarters 
Air  Mobility  Command  (HQ  AMC/JAM) ,  reviewed  the  initiated 
discharge  action  and  stated  that  the  involuntary  separation 
action originally began  as a General  Court-Martial action.  A 
military  judge dismissed the  charges that had  been referred to 
trial. 
The  military  judge  found  that  applicant's  initial 
disclosure  of  his  illicit  drug  activities  constituted  self- 
identification of drug abuse under AFI 36-2701.  As a result, the 

2 

disclosures could not be  used  as the basis  for prosecuting the 
applicant for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice 
(UCMJ) .  While  the military  judge's finding probably  should be 
conclusive  on  the  issue  of  "self-identification, I)  it  does  not 
preclude  administrative  separation  action  based  on  the 
information  applicant  disclosed.  In  cases where  AFI  36-3206, 
paragraph 3.6.4  (serious misconduct), is a basis for discharge, a 
discharge under  other  than honorable  conditions is  authorized. 
However, the Wing Commander notified the applicant that he could 
receive no less than an honorable discharge if  separated.  The 
discharge  case  file  contains  sufficient  evidence  to  warrant 
recommending that the Air Force discharge applicant. 
In a narrative summary, dated 11 August 1995, Doctor J. B. B---, 
Chief, Mental Health Services, indicated the applicant responded 
well  to initial inpatient and on-going outpatient mental health 
treatment for a major episode of depression associated with mood 
congruent psychotic  symptoms.  It  was projected  that  applicant 
would  complete an  intensive outpatient Veterans  Administration 
(VA) substance dependent treatment program in the next one to two 
months.  Allowing him to complete this VA treatment program would 
provide  him  with  optimal  substance  abuse  treatment  before 
discharge.  He would continue to receive comprehensive outpatient 
mental health services at the Fairchild AFB mental health clinic. 
On  14  September  1995,  a  Medical  Evaluation  Board  (MEB) was 
convened at Travis AFB, California for the purpose of evaluating 
applicant's medical condition.  The MEB established the following 
diagnosis:  AXIS  I Major  Depressive  Disorder, Single Episode, 
approximate date of origin April 1995; MIL IMP:  Marked, CIV IMP: 
Definite;  Opioid  Dependence, approximate  date  of  origin  1993. 
AXIS  I1 No  diagnosis  (prominent obsessive/compulsive, dependent 
and avoidant traits noted), existed prior to service (EPTS).  The 
MEB  recommended the case be  forwarded to the  Informal Physical 
Evaluation Board  (IPEB) . 
On  19  September  1995,  the  Vice  Commander, HQ AMC,  recommended 
applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge and that his 
case be  forwarded to the Air  Force Personnel Board  for further 
action. 
The  IPEB  convened  on  6  October  1995  and  found  the  following 
diagnosis: 
Major  depressive  disorder,  single  episode,  with 
definite industrial impairment.  Other diagnoses considered but 
not  ratable:  Opioid  dependence,  in  sustained  full  remission, 
personality  disorder;  psychosocial  and  environmental  stressor 
problems. 
The  IPEB  recommended  temporary  retirement  with  a 
rating of 30%.  On 30 October 1995, the applicant disagreed with 
the  findings and  requested  a  formal  hearing.  On  17  November 
1995,  the  applicant  requested  a  waiver  of  his  election  to  a 
Forma1  Physical  Evaluation  Board  (FPEB).  His  request  for  a 
waiver  was  disapproved  on  17 November  1995  by  the  President, 
FPEB . 

3 

L 

On 21 November 1995,  a FPEB convened and found the diagnoses to 
be:  Major depressive disorder, single episode, with mild social 
and  industrial impairment.  Other diagnoses considered but  not 
ratable : 
Opioid  dependence,  in  full  remission;  personality 
disorder;  psychosocial  and  environmental  stressor  problems; 
history of marital problems.  The FPEBIs recommended disposition 
was discharge with severance pay with a 10% compensable rating. 
Applicant disagreed with the findings and recommended action of 
the formal PEB hearing and submitted a rebuttal. 
Applicant's case was forwarded to the Secretary of the Air Force 
Personnel  Council  (SAFPC) for  consideration of  discharge under 
AFI  36-3206  (Administrative Discharge  Procedures)  (Drug Abuse) 
and AFI  36-3212  (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, 
and  Separation)  -  Dual  Action. 
On  20  February  1996,  the 
Secretary  of  the  Air  Force,  by  direction  of  the  President, 
ordered the appointment of  applicant, as a Reserve officer, be 
terminated  pursuant  to  AFI  36-3207  (Separating  Commissioned 
Officers) ,  and  directed  the  applicant  be  discharged  with  an 
honorable discharge. 
Applicant  was  honorably  discharged  on  8 March  1996  under  the 
provisions of AFI 36-3207  (Unacceptable Conduct) in the grade of 
captain.  He  served  2  years, 11  months  and  21  days  of  active 
military  service. 
(Applicant served  4  years  of  prior  active 
service in the U. S. Navy). 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The Chief, Physical Disability Division, AFPC/DPPD states that a 
thorough  review  of  the  case  file  revealed  no  errors  or 
irregularities in the processing of the applicant's case within 
the  disability  evaluation  system.  He  was  appropriately  found 
unfit  for  continued military  service  and  properly  rated  under 
federal disability rating guidelines.  Applicant was afforded all 
rights  to  which  he  was  entitled  under  disability  law  and 
The  SAFPC  determination  to  terminate 
departmental  policy. 
disability processing in order to effect administrative discharge 
action  was  done  in  accordance  with  Air  Force  policy. 
They 
recommend denial of applicant's request. 
A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit C . 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 
on  27  May  1997  for  review  and  response  within  30  days.  The 
applicant did not respond. 

4 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The  Separations  Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPPRS,  stated  that  the 
applicant's case has been reviewed for separation processing and 
there are no errors or irregularities causing an injustice to the 
applicant.  The reason for discharge is appropriate and complies 
with  directives  in  effect  at  the  time  of  his  discharge. 
Applicant did not  identify any specific errors in the discharge 
processing  nor  provide  facts  which  warrant  his  administrative 
discharge be set aside.  They recommend the request be denied. 
A  complete  copy  of  the  additional  Air  Force  evaluation  is 
attached at Exhibit E. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION 

Applicant  states, in summary, that the Air Force broke promises 
made  in AFI  36-2701 that  outlines the  Substance Abuse  Control 
Program.  Both  the  letter  and  spirit  of  this  instruction was 
disregarded in his  case.  He  alleges the Air  Force wrongfully 
withheld  vital  medical  care  that  was  recommended  by  the  base 
The  Air  Force  wrongfully  used  administrative 
psychiatrist. 
action  against  him  for  !'severe, recurring  misconduct  that  is 
punishable by law."  The documented facts show that he was denied 
appropriate medical treatment for over a one-year period and his 
condition worsened as a result. 
A  complete  copy  of  applicant's  response, with  attachments,  is 
attached 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 probable error or injustice.  After 
a  thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record  and  applicant's 
submission,  we  are  not  persuaded  that  his  administrative 
discharge  should  be  changed  to  a  disability  discharge. 
Applicant's contentions are duly noted; however, we do not  find 
these assertions, in and by  themselves, sufficiently persuasive 
to  override  the  rationale  provided  by  the  Air  Force. 
The 
applicant alleges that the Air Force withheld vital medical care 
and that his commander failed to follow regulations in providing 
that  medical  care. 
However,  after  an  inquiry  by  the  Wing 

5 

8 

Inspector  General,  the  allegations  were  unsubstantiated.  It 
appears by the evidence of record that the applicant was afforded 
the appropriate medical care.  He also alleges that the Air Force 
wrongfully  used  administrative  action  against  him  for  severe, 
recurring misconduct  that  is punishable  by  law.  We  note that 
when  court-martial  charges  were  preferred  against  him,  the 
military  judge dismissed the charges because  he  found that the 
initial  disclosure  of  the  applicant's  illicit  drug  activities 
constituted self-identification of drug abuse under  regulation. 
However, that finding did not preclude administrative separation 
action based  on the  information applicant disclosed.  The fact 
remains  that  the  applicant  did  abuse  drugs  and  there  was 
sufficient evidence to warrant  an administrative discharge.  We 
therefore  agree  with  the  recommendations of  the Air  Force  and 
adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that 
the  applicant  has  failed  to  sustain  his  burden  that  he  has 
suffered either an error or an injustice.  Therefore, we find no 
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought. 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 
The  applicant be  notified  that  the  evidence presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  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 this application in 
Executive Session on 17 November  1998,  under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603. 

Mr. Henry C. Saunders, Panel Chair 
Mr. Henry Romo Jr., Member 
Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Aug 96, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 9 May 97. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 May 97. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 21 Jan 98. 
Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Feb 98. 
Exhibit G.  Applicant's Letter, date  12 Feb  8, w/atchs. 

d

d

 

Y C. SAUNDERS 

k

l

6