RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-04014
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general discharge be changed to a  medical  discharge  and  his
narrative reason for separation of “misconduct” be changed.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reason behind most of his misconduct was  because  he  was  not
getting to the places he was supposed to be on time,  which  was  a
result of a medical condition with his heart that made it hard  for
him to get to sleep.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  on  4  Aug  99  for  a
period of four years in the grade of airman first class  (A1C/E-3).


On  2  Feb   00,   the   squadron   section   commander   initiated
administrative discharge action against the applicant for a Pattern
of Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to Good  Order  and  Discipline.
The specific reasons for the proposed action were:

On or about 18 Nov 99, applicant failed to report to duty on  time.
He  received  a  letter  of  reprimand  (LOR)  and  an  unfavorable
information file (UIF) was established.

On or about 6 Dec 99, applicant failed to report to  duty  on  time
and on or about 9 and 10 Dec  99,  he  failed  to  report  to  duty
(Physical Training), for which he received a letter  of  counseling
(LOC).

On or about 15 Dec 99, he failed to  report  to  duty  (First  Term
Airman Center) on time, for which he received an LOC.

On or about 16 Dec 99, he failed to report to duty on time, he also
failed to go to a medical appointment on that same day, and  on  or
about 17 Dec 99, he failed to report for duty  (First  Term  Airman
Center) on time, for which he received an LOR.

Also, between on or about 3 Jan 00 to  4  Jan  00,  he  was  absent
without authority from his appointed place of duty,  for  which  he
received an Article 15.  The Article 15 punishment imposed  on  the
applicant consisted of reduction to the grade of airman basic, with
a new date of rank of 25 Jan 00 and restriction  to  the  base  for
30 days.

On that same date, applicant acknowledged receipt of the  discharge
notification.   On  3  Feb  00,  after  consulting  with   counsel,
applicant declined to submit statements  in  his  own  behalf.   On
10 Feb 00, the Acting Staff Judge  Advocate  found  the  case  file
legally sufficient  to  justify  an  administrative  discharge  for
misconduct and recommended that the applicant be separated  with  a
general discharge, without probation or  rehabilitation.   He  also
recommended that the applicant be barred  from  the  base  for  two
years.  On 18 Feb 00, the discharge authority  approved  a  general
discharge, without probation and rehabilitation.

On 22 Feb 00, the applicant was discharged under the provisions  of
AFI 36-3208 by reason of misconduct, with service characterized  as
general (under honorable  conditions).   He  served  6  months  and
19 days on active duty.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to the applicant’s  medical
condition while on active duty are contained in the AFBCMR  Medical
Consultant’s evaluation at Exhibit C.

On 21 Aug 00, the Air Force Discharge Review  Board  (AFDRB)  found
that  neither  evidence  of  record,  nor  that  provided  by   the
applicant, substantiated an inequity  or  impropriety  which  would
justify a change in the discharge  (see  AFDRB  Hearing  Record  at
Exhibit B).

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  AFBCMR  Medical  Consultant  states  that  the  applicant  was
administratively separated on 22 Feb 00, after 6 months and 19 days
on active duty.  He indicated  that  the  applicant  had  completed
basic training and while at technical training he failed to  report
for details and was found  in  bed.   He  received  an  LOR,  which
documented that  he  had  failed  to  complete  the  required  out-
processing for his  move  to  his  next  duty  station.   A  letter
documenting  these  same  difficulties   was   forwarded   to   the
applicant’s new commander.  The AFBCMR  Medical  Consultant  listed
the other events which led up to the applicant’s discharge.

A review of the applicant’s  medical  records  shows  that  he  was
diagnosed with a congenital heart condition (present since  birth),
a hole in the septum (wall) separating his right  and  left  atrial
chambers (either an Atrial Septal Defect (hole) or a Patent Foramen
Ovale (failure of the foramen ovale to close  at  birth,  a  normal
opening in the atrial septum during development while still in  the
womb that closes  at  birth)  while  in  technical  training.   The
applicant was discharged due  to  misconduct  prior  to  definitive
diagnosis of his existing prior to service (EPTS) condition.

On his 18 Jun 99  enlistment  physical  examination  the  applicant
denied all symptoms and apparently completed basic training without
difficulty.  Shortly after entering active duty  he  was  diagnosed
with Sickle Trait and was counseled regarding the rare  association
with exercise related complications and signed a  counseling  form.
In Oct 89, while in technical training the applicant went through a
series of medical examinations on his  heart,  it  was  recommended
that  a  trans-esophageal  echocardiogram  (TEE)  be  conducted  to
further  clarify  the  extent  of  the  applicant’s  condition  and
potential requirement for corrective surgery.

The applicant graduated from technical training and arrived at  his
new duty station in mid  Nov  99.   He  was  seen  by  an  internal
medicine specialist on 6 Dec 99, who noted  the  TEE  results.   He
felt that the applicant’s chest pain and dyspnea were  due  to  his
congenital heart condition.  On 10 Dec  99,  applicant  experienced
chest discomfort and shortness of breath while wearing a  gas  mask
and was evaluated at the clinic at which time he was  noted  to  be
anxious but otherwise had a normal evaluation.  His chest pain  was
felt to be related  to  his  anxiety  versus  his  suspected  heart
condition.

On  27  Dec  99,  the  applicant  was  evaluated  by   a   civilian
cardiologist  for  his  history  of  heart  murmur  and   suspected
congenital atrial septal defect.  The examination was  felt  to  be
suggestive of the suspected congenital heart  disease  and  further
evaluation by TEE was recommended.

In addition to the heart conditions, in Nov 99, the  applicant  was
diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed
mood, and on 27 Jan 00, he was diagnosed with  Adjustment  Disorder
with Mixed  Disturbance  of  Emotion  and  Conduct.   There  is  no
indication  that  his  mental  health  providers  felt   that   his
adjustment  disorder  was   severe   enough   to   have   warranted
administrative discharge.

The  applicant  was  diagnosed  with  an  EPTS   congenital   heart
condition, either an Atrial Septal Defect or a Patent Foramen based
on a trans-thoracic  echocardiogram.   More  definitive  diagnostic
evaluation  was  not  completed  because  of   his   administrative
separation for misconduct.  He contends that his  congenital  heart
disease caused his misconduct, however there is  no  medical  basis
for this.  The applicant completed  basic  training  and  technical
training before exhibiting his pattern of misconduct.  There was no
reason to delay  his  discharge  for  elective  evaluation  of  his
congenital  heart  condition  and  such   delay   is   specifically
prohibited by Air Force instruction.

Such a congenital defect is disqualifying  for  both  entrance  and
continuation on active duty in the Air Force if not  satisfactorily
corrected.   Had  the  applicant  not  engaged  in  a  pattern   of
misconduct and been discharged, it is likely  that  he  would  have
been offered the option to undergo surgical  repair  if  clinically
indicated with the potential for retention on active duty.

Action and disposition  in  this  case  are  proper  and  equitable
reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement  the
law.  It is his opinion that no change in the records is warranted.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ  AFPC/DPPD  reviewed  this  application  and  commented  on  the
applicant’s applicability through the Disability Evaluation  System
(DES) under the provisions of AFI 36-3212.  The purpose of the  DES
is to maintain a fit and vital  force  by  separating  or  retiring
members who are unable to  perform  the  duties  of  their  office,
grade, rank or rating.  Those members who are separated or  retired
by reason of a physical disability  may  be  eligible  for  certain
disability compensation.  The decision to process a member  through
the military DES is determined by a Medical Evaluation Board  (MEB)
when he or she is determined disqualified  for  continued  military
service.  The decision to conduct an MEB is  made  by  the  medical
treatment facility providing the health care to the member.

In the applicant’s case, his records show that he was being treated
for a congenital heart condition/atrial septic  defect  (considered
to have existed prior to his entrance on active duty); however, his
discharge  took  effect  prior  to  completion  of  his  treatment.
Although applicant’s  records  reflect  he  was  treated  for  some
medical conditions during his short military career, none  appeared
serious  or  life  threatening  enough  as  to  preclude  him  from
performing his military duties or curtailing  his  career.   Had  a
medical evaluation board (MEB) been initiated and the case referred
to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB),  the  Board  more
than likely would have recommended he  be  discharged  under  other
than Chap 61, Title 10, USC due to preexisting  medical  conditions
prior to his military service.  The preponderance  of  evidence  in
the applicant’s military records does not substantiate  or  support
his request for a disability discharge.

It is essential that veterans understand that service  members  who
incur service-connected medical conditions while on active duty are
authorized  compensation  and  treatment  from  the  Department  of
Veterans Affairs (DVA) under the provisions of Title 38, USC.




They further stated that the  applicant’s  case  file  revealed  no
errors or  irregularities  during  his  involuntary  administrative
discharge process that would  justify  a  change  to  his  military
records.  They agreed with the AFBCMR Medical  Consultant’s  review
of the medical  aspects  of  the  case  and  recommended  that  the
applicant’s request be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant
on 9 May 03 for review and comment within  30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).

___________________________________________________________________

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 or error or injustice warranting a change
in the applicant’s discharge.   After  a  thorough  review  of  the
evidence of record and applicant's  submission,  we  are  persuaded
that there was no medical basis  that  the  applicant’s  congenital
heart disease caused his misconduct.   His  medical  condition  was
disqualifying for both entrance into  and  continuation  on  active
duty in the Air Force, if not satisfactorily  corrected.   Further,
the applicant  completed  basic  training  and  technical  training
before exhibiting his pattern of misconduct  and  a  delay  of  his
discharge for elective evaluation of his condition is  specifically
prohibited by Air Force instruction.  Therefore, we agree with  the
opinion and recommendation of the  Air  Force  offices  of  primary
responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the  basis  for
our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of
having suffered either an error or injustice.  In  the  absence  of
persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice  warranting  a  change  in  the
applicant’s reason for separation.   Based  upon  the  evidence  of
record, he was evaluated as having an adjustment disorder, however,
there was no indication that his mental health providers felt  that
his adjustment disorder was severe enough to warrant administrative
discharge.  Nevertheless, we  believe  that  some  form  of  relief
should be  granted.   Although  the  Board  does  not  condone  the
misconduct of the applicant,  we  recommend  that  his  reason  for
separation be changed to “Secretarial  Authority.”   Therefore,  we
recommend the  applicant's  records  be  corrected  to  the  extent
indicated below.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the  Air  Force
relating   to   APPLICANT,   be   corrected   to   show   that   on
22 February 2000, he was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-
3208, paragraph 1.2  (Secretarial  Authority),  with  a  Separation
Program Designator (SPD) code of “JFF.”


___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2002-04014 in Executive Session  on  19  June  2003,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
                 Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Member
                 Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Member

All members voted to correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Dec 02.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 30 Mar 03.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 1 May 03.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 May 03.




                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR BC-2002-04014




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the
authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat
116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on
22 February 2000, he was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-
3208, paragraph 1.2 (Secretarial Authority), with a Separation Program
Designator (SPD) code of “JFF.”







            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency