RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02233
            INDEX CODE:  108.01, 110.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge  be  changed  to  reflect
that he was discharged for medical reasons.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Prior to his  discharge  a  Medical  Evaluation  Board  (MEB)  and  Physical
Evaluation Board (PEB) determined that he was unfit  for  duty.   A  medical
discharge should have occurred but he  was  erroneously  discharged  without
any sort of medical plan.  The Air Force believed his condition was  a  pre-
existing ailment.  If that were the  case  then  he  should  not  have  been
allowed to enter the Air Force.   Instead  he  passed  the  physical  exams,
which shows that his condition was not a factor.  It  took  six  months  and
four physicians to determine that he has degeneration and  deterioration  of
both ankles.  He is now expected to continue his life with no help from  the
Air  Force.   He  has  been  unable  to  receive  any  type  of  therapy  or
rehabilitation.  He  is  currently  unemployed  due  to  his  poor  physical
condition.  He cannot do 70 percent of what is  expected  of  a  person  his
age.  He is recovering from treatment of his left ankle  and  will  have  to
endure another operation on his other ankle.  With  costs  of  $20,000,  not
including therapy, he believes a medical discharge would be  an  appropriate
way to reverse the general discharge he received.

In support of his request, applicant provided a  personal  statement  and  a
letter he received  regarding  his  dual  action  discharge.   His  complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  on  16  Jan  01  and  was
progressively promoted to the grade of airman first  class,  having  assumed
that grade effective and with a date of rank of 16 May 02.

An MEB was convened on 16 Apr 03  and  referred  his  case  to  an  Informal
Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) with a diagnosis of left ankle pain.  On  2
May 03, the IPEB found him unfit for  further  military  service,  that  his
condition existed  prior  to  service,  and  recommended  he  be  discharged
without compensation.

On 10 Apr  03,  applicant  was  notified  by  his  commander  that  she  was
recommending that he be discharged from the Air  Force  in  accordance  with
AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.50.  The specific reasons  for  this
action were on 19 Feb 03, he was  convicted  by  Summary  Court-Martial  for
failure to obey a lawful order  and  carnal  knowledge;  on  7  Nov  02,  he
received Article 15 punishment for failure to go to his appointed  place  of
duty; on 19 Sep 02, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for  failure  to
stay at his appointed place of duty; on 10 Jul 02, he received a  Letter  of
Counseling for failure to report to his place of duty;  on  20  May  02,  he
received Article 15 punishment for failure to go to his appointed  place  of
duty; on 11 Mar 02, he received an LOR for failure to report  for  a  dental
examination; and on 14 Feb 02, he was given a  Letter  of  Admonishment  for
failure to follow an order given by a Senior  Noncommissioned  Officer.   He
was advised of his rights in this matter and  acknowledged  receipt  of  the
notification on 17 Apr 03.  Applicant elected to waive his right to  consult
counsel and waived his right to submit matters on  his  own  behalf.   In  a
legal review of the case, the staff judge advocate, found the  case  legally
sufficient and recommended that he  be  discharged  with  a  general  (under
honorable conditions) discharge, without probation and rehabilitation.   The
discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed  that  he
be discharged.  Applicant was discharged from the Air  Force  on  2 May  03.
He served 2 years, 2 months, and 26 days on active duty.  The applicant  has
21 days time lost.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial.   The  Medical  Consultant
states members who are pending separation under provisions that authorize  a
characterization of service under other than honorable conditions,  even  if
the actual characterization is general, are not eligible for  referral  into
the disability evaluation system unless the medical impairment  may  be  the
cause of the misconduct.  Apparently at the time of the  initiation  of  the
MEB he was  not  yet  pending  administrative  discharge,  but  was  clearly
pending court-martial.  When an airman is subject to  involuntary  discharge
for  misconduct  and  is  also  eligible  for   disability   separation   or
retirement, the Secretary of the Air  Force  Personnel  Council  (SAFPC)  is
required  to  determine  which  basis  for  discharge  the  airman  will  be
separated.  Although it was too early to  determine  if  his  surgery  would
have restored him to worldwide qualified for duty, it appears an  error  was
made  by  discharge  prior  to  dual  action   processing   of   his   case.
Nonetheless, it does not appear that  his  rights  were  prejudiced  as  the
discharge would have remained the same if the error had not been made.   The
finding that his medical condition did not cause his misconduct  would  have
directed discharge  for  misconduct.   The  PEB  concluded  that  his  ankle
condition existed prior  to  service  and  was  not  permanently  aggravated
beyond the natural progression of the  condition.   The  Medical  Consultant
evaluation is at Exhibit C.

SAF/MRBP recommends that the discharge action stand  and  that  the  pending
disability  evaluation  system  action  be  terminated.    MRBP   states   a
retrospective dual-action  case  review  was  completed  on  behalf  of  the
applicant.  A comparative analysis of his medical condition and the  gravity
of  his  administrative  infractions  was  performed  for  determining   the
appropriate reason for  his  separation  and  characterization  of  service.
While empathetic with his physical limitations, the Personnel Council  found
no causal or mitigating relationship between his medical condition  and  the
administrative infractions he committed.  The MRBP evaluation is at  Exhibit
E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to  the  applicant  on  2
Dec 03 and 1 Jun 04 for review and comment  within  30  days.   As  of  this
date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 injustice.  We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's  complete
submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case  and  note  that  an  error
occurred in his discharge processing.  However, in light of the Air  Force's
determination after completion of a retrospective dual-action  review,  that
timely dual-action processing of his case would have resulted with the  same
outcome, we do  not  believe  he  has  been  the  victim  of  an  injustice.
Accordingly, we agree with the  opinions  and  recommendations  of  the  Air
Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt  their  rationale  as  the
basis for our conclusion that corrective action is  not  warranted  in  this
case.  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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2003-
02233 in Executive Session on 19 Aug 04, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
      Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
      Ms. Beth M. McCormick, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 May 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 24 Nov 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 2 Dec 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRPB, dated 21 May 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 1 Jun 04.




                                   WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                   Panel Chair