RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00096
            INDEX NUMBER:  145.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason  for  discharge  be  changed  from  “unsuitable-apathy,
defective attitude-evaluation officer” to a medical discharge and  his  rank
be restored to senior airman.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was wrongfully  dismissed  from  the  Air  Force  and  should  have  been
medically discharged.  He states that several months  after  falling  off  a
bunk bed and injuring his head, he informed his  commander  that  he  didn’t
fell well and that he wasn’t himself.   One  week  after  his  discharge  he
suffered a seizure and later underwent brain surgery.

In support of his request, the applicant submits  a  personal  statement,  a
copy of an independent medical evaluation,  a  copy  of  his  DD  Form  214,
Certificate of Release or Discharge From  Active  Duty,  and  a  copy  of  a
letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active  duty  22  November  1976,  and  served  as  an
Administration Specialist/Staff Support Administration.

He was punished with an Article 15, forfeiture of  $150 per  month  for  two
months and 14 days  extra  duty  on  31  March  1977  for  wrongfully  using
marijuana.  On 4 November 1977,  he  received  a  Letter  of  Reprimand  for
failure to show to his appointed place of  duty  on  2  November  1977,  and
remained absent until 1200 hours the next  day.   On  8  December  1978,  he
received a Letter of Counseling for failing  to  pay  North  Carolina  state
income tax.  On 26 June 1979, he received a Letter of Reprimand for  failure
to show to his appointed place of duty on 26  June  until  1000  hours.   On
27 June 1979, he received a Letter of Counseling  for  writing  checks  with
insufficient funds (three checks totaling  $19.80),  and  was  referred  for
financial  counseling.   On  4  October  1979,  he  received  a  Letter   of
Counseling for failure to pay just debt ($131  owed  to  another  Air  Force
member).  On 31 October 1979, he  received  a  Letter  of  Reprimand  for  a
civilian arrest 9 October 1979.  On 9 October 1979, he was served a  warrant
for his arrest by the Sumter County Sheriff for “Trespassing After  Notice”.
 The applicant had been “given written notice not to  be  on  said  property
again; however failed to obey the order”.  On 10  October  1979,  he  posted
and forfeited a fine of  $25.   Documentation  related  to  the  trespassing
arrest  shows  that  the  applicant  was  charged  in  September  1977   for
housebreaking/larceny but  that  those  charges  were  later  dropped.   The
applicant received his second Article 15 on 9 November 1979, for failure  to
show  to  his  appointed  place  of  duty  and  was  reduced  to  A1C.   The
applicant’s statement in  response  to  the  Article  15  indicates  he  was
participating in field  exercises  at  Hurlburt  Field,  FL  and  went  with
friends to clubs in the local community and ended up  in  Pensacola,  unable
to get a ride back to the base late at night.

The applicant’s commander initiated discharge action on         10  December
1979  and  recommended  a  general   characterization   of   service.    The
independent officer evaluation  and  legal  review  of  discharge  dated  10
January  1980  and  22  January  1980  respectively   concluded   that   the
applicant’s  misconduct  formed  a  sufficient  basis  for  discharge,   but
recommended that  his  service  characterization  was  better  described  as
honorable.  On         31 January 1980, he  was  administratively  separated
with an honorable discharge.  He served three (3) years, two (2) months  and
ten (10) days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.   Because  he  was  medically
fit while on active duty and his condition had its onset after discharge  he
was not eligible for an Air Force disability evaluation.  Title 10,  U.S.C.,
Chapter 61 is the federal statute that charges the Service Secretaries  with
maintaining a  fit  and  vital  force.   The  mere  presence  of  a  medical
condition does not qualify a  member  for  disability  evaluation.   For  an
individual to be considered unfit for military  service,  there  must  be  a
medical condition so  severe  that  it  prevents  performance  of  any  work
commensurate  with  rank  and  experience.   Members,  who  are  pending   a
scheduled separation and develop a new medical condition,  may  be  retained
pending  medical  evaluation  only  if  the  condition  represents  a   very
significant new condition that would warrant a  disability  discharge.   Had
the applicant experienced his seizure before discharge he  would  have  been
evaluated in the disability system as discussed above.

Action and disposition in this case  are  proper  and  equitable  reflecting
compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD recommends  denial.   The  applicant  failed  to  provide  medical
documentation to corroborate that an injustice occurred  during  the  period
of his involuntary administrative discharge process  that  would  justify  a
change to his records to reflect  he  was  awarded  a  disability  discharge
under provisions of Chapter 61, Title 10, USC and AFM 35-4.

The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends  denial.   The  demotion  action  taken  against  the
applicant was procedurally correct and there is no evidence there  were  any
irregularities or that the case was mishandled.  However, should  the  Board
grant the applicant’s request, he will be entitled to his  former  grade  of
senior airman reinstated with a date of rank of 1 March 1979 per SOA-316.

The DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

He  states  that  the  recommendation  to  the  Board  is   unfair.    Petty
misconducts with no substance were used to help form these  recommendations.
 The review of his records found incidents with  no  substance,  but  yet  a
review of  the  same  records  cannot  find  documented  evidence  of  great
importance to his case.  He believes  that  if  he  was  given  the  correct
diagnosis from the start, and received the proper medication he  could  have
been a productive member of the Air Force.   He  also  states  that  he  was
never given the chance to be evaluated in  the  disability  system  for  his
medical condition.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we  are  not
persuaded by the evidence provided that the reason for  his  discharge  from
the Air Force was inappropriate, erroneous, or that he was denied rights  to
which  he  was  entitled.   Since  there  were  no   disqualifying   medical
conditions at the time of his separation, we see  no  reason  why  he  would
have been eligible for consideration in the  disability  evaluation  system.
In regards to the restoration of his grade  to  senior  airman,  it  is  our
opinion that given the circumstances surrounding his reduction to the  grade
of airman first class, the actions taken by his commander  were  proper  and
in compliance with the appropriate regulations and  directives.   Therefore,
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application  in Executive
Session on 19 August 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
            Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Member
            Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR  Docket  Number
BC-2003-00096:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Jan 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 2 May 03.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 10 Jun 03.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPWB, dated 18 Jun 03.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jul 03.
      Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Jul 03, w/atchs.




               RICHARD A. PETERSON
               Panel Chair