RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03246
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge  be  changed  to   a
disability discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He desires a disability discharge.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 19 February 2002  in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of six years.

On 3 October 2002, the applicant was notified of his commander's  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for the following:   He  did,  at  or
near Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, on or about  16  September  2002,  with
intent to deceive, falsely alter a WHMC Form 3530, Training  Temporary  Duty
Restriction Form, to wit: adding the  words  bed  rest,  which  conduct  was
prejudicial to good order and discipline.

The applicant waived his right to  court-martial  proceedings  and  accepted
nonjudicial punishment proceedings; he did not consult  a  lawyer,  and  did
not submit a written presentation.

He was found guilty by his commander who imposed the  following  punishment:
a forfeiture of $257.00 pay.

The applicant did not appeal the punishment.  The Article 15  was  filed  in
his Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

On 2  December  2002,  the  applicant  underwent  corrective  left  shoulder
surgery.  During technical training, the applicant experienced chronic  left
shoulder laxity with complaints of pain and recurrent movement out of  joint
following an undocumented injury at the end of basic training.

On 7 January 2003, the applicant was notified of his commander's  intent  to
initiate discharge action against him for Commission of a  Serious  Offense.
Specifically, on 9 November 2002,  an  investigation  revealed  that  on  28
November 2002, he consumed alcohol while under the  legal  drinking  age  of
21, and knowingly used an altered Military Identification Card  to  purchase
alcohol.  As a result, he  received  a  Letter  of  Reprimand  (LOR),  dated
10 December 2002.

The commander advised the applicant of his right to  consult  legal  counsel
and to submit statements in his own behalf; or waive the above rights  after
consulting with counsel.

The applicant waived his right  to  consult  legal  counsel  and  to  submit
statements in his own behalf.

On  10  January  2003,  the  applicant  was  served  an  addendum   to   the
notification memorandum which included the 3 October 2002  Article  15,  and
changed the basis for the discharge to Minor Disciplinary Infractions.

The commander advised the applicant of his right to  consult  legal  counsel
and to submit statements in his own behalf; or waive the above rights  after
consulting with counsel.

The applicant waived his right  to  consult  legal  counsel  and  to  submit
statements in his own behalf.

On 23  January  2003,  the  Acting  Staff  Judge  Advocate  recommended  the
applicant  be  discharged  with  a  general  (under  honorable   conditions)
discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

On 30 January 2003, a Line of Duty Determination,  AF  Form  348,  indicated
the applicant dislocated his left shoulder during basic training.  He  never
sought medical attention at that time.  He was able to pop it back in  place
and took Motrin for pain.  He stated he did not have  any  further  problems
with his shoulder, which he attributes to the number  of  push-ups  required
in the security forces training school.  Due  to  continued  complaints,  he
was referred to physical therapy and orthopedics  whom  eventually  operated
on his shoulder.  On 6 February 2003, as a result of the investigation,  the
commander determined the injury was in the line of duty.

On  26  February  2003,  a  Narrative  Summary   indicated   the   applicant
traumatically dislocated his left shoulder in April 2002.  He had  recurrent
subluxations and dislocations since that time.  He tried several courses  of
therapy targeted at strengthening his rotator cuff,  but  was  unsuccessful.
After discussing all  of  the  risks,  benefits,  and  alternatives  to  the
planned  procedure,  which  included  a  diagnostic   shoulder   arthroscopy
followed by an anterior capsular shift, he elected to  have  the  procedure.
The Narrative Summary further indicated it was recommended the applicant  be
granted either separation with instructions to return to active  duty  after
resolution of his problem or placed  on  the  temporary  disability  retired
list (TDRL) pending resolution of his symptoms.

On 5 March 2003, a commander’s evaluation indicated the  applicant  had  not
been able to perform the necessary security forces training requirements  in
such a manner as to reasonably fulfill the  purpose  of  his  employment  on
active duty.  He was pending administrative  action  that  would  result  in
dismissal from the Air Force.  He further  indicated  it  was  in  the  best
interest of the Air Force that the applicant not be retained.

On 6 March 2003, a Medical Board Report indicated the  applicant  was  found
to have status post (S/P) left shoulder anteroinferior  capsular  shift  for
traumatic  dislocation,  1  April  2002,  (right  hand  dominate).   It  was
determined the injury existed prior to  service.   It  was  recommended  the
applicant return to duty.

The case was forwarded on  19  March  2003,  the  findings  and  recommended
disposition of the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB)  indicated  the
applicant was diagnosed with category I - unfitting  conditions  which  were
compensable and ratable - Left  shoulder  chronic  pain  and  anteroinferior
capsular shift secondary to  traumatic  dislocation  during  basic  military
training spontaneously relocation in shoulder  socket.   It  was  determined
the applicant was unfit because of a physical disability and the  disability
was incurred in the line of duty.   It  was  recommended  the  applicant  be
discharged with severance pay with a disability rating of 10 percent.

On 31 March 2003, the discharge  authority  approved  applicant’s  discharge
and that same day, the  applicant  was  discharged  with  a  general  (under
honorable conditions) discharge, in the grade of airman first  class  (A1C),
under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Misconduct).  He served a  total  of  1
year, 1 month, and 13 days of active military service.

On 7 May 2003, HQ AFPC/DPPD  advised  the  applicant  of  an  error  in  his
release from active duty and  provided  him  an  opportunity  to  apply  for
correction of the error.  They indicated he was in  disability  channels  at
the time of his release from active duty.  He was  being  offered  discharge
with severance pay by the Informal Physical  Evaluation  Board  (IPEB),  but
was erroneously discharged prior to finalization  of  his  disability  case.
His administrative separation package and his disability  case  should  have
been forwarded to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel  Council  (SAFPC)
for adjudication.  They believe he should be given the opportunity to  apply
to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).


On 6 January 2004,  AFPC/DPPD  indicated  in  a  letter  to  SAFPC/AFPB  the
disability processing records revealed a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB)  was
initiated on 6 March  2003,  and  the  results  referred  to  the  IPEB  for
adjudication of the case.  The Board determined  his  chronic  pain  in  his
left shoulder as unfitting for continued military  service  and  recommended
he be discharged with  entitlement  to  severance  pay  with  a  10  percent
disability rating.  The  applicant  agreed  with  the  IPEB’s  findings  and
recommendation and was briefed of his  rights  by  the  Physical  Evaluation
Board Liaison Officer (PEBLO).  They were notified the  applicant  had  been
released  from  active  duty  and  all  disability-processing  actions  were
ceased.  They recommended SAFPC adjudicate  the  applicant’s  records  as  a
dual action case to determine which action SAFPC  wished  to  pursue  to  be
finalized.

On 12 February  2004,  SAFPC  advised  there  was  no  cause  or  mitigating
relationship  between  the  applicant’s  medical  condition  and  the  minor
disciplinary infractions he committed and therefore,  advised  the  previous
AFI 36-3208 action should remain the same.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD recommended denial.  They highly recommend the AFBCMR support  the
SAFPC’s decision, dated 12 February 2004, and the  administrative  discharge
action under AFI 36-3208 remain firm.

The evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 27 February 2004, a copy of the Air Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As of this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommended denial.  He  indicated  an  MEB  was
initiated  following  initiation  of  administrative  discharge  action  for
misconduct.   Evaluation  in  the  disability  system   concluded   with   a
recommendation for disability discharge with  severance  pay;  however,  the
administrative discharge was executed without consideration by the SAFPC  as
a dual action case.

Members who  are  pending  separation  under  provisions  that  authorize  a
characterization of service of UOTHC, even if  the  actual  characterization
that the member receives is general are not eligible for referral  into  the
Disability  Evaluation  System  (DES)  unless  the  medical  impairment   or
extenuating circumstances may be the cause of the misconduct.  At  the  time
of initiation of the  MEB,  the  applicant  was  pending  an  administrative
discharge for misconduct under provisions that authorized a UOTHC.

When an airman is the subject of involuntary discharge  for  misconduct  and
may also be eligible for disability  separation  or  disability  retirement,
action is required by the Secretary of the Air Force  Personnel  Council  to
determine under which basis for discharge the airman will be separated.   It
appears that an error may have been made by discharge  without  dual  action
processing of this case.

There is no evidence the applicant’s medical condition caused  or  mitigated
his misconduct.  Although an error may have occurred,  it  does  not  appear
the  applicant’s  rights  were  prejudiced,  as  the  discharge  would  have
remained the same if the error had not been made.  The Secretary of the  Air
Force Personnel Council found  his  medical  condition  did  not  cause  his
misconduct.

Although there appears to have been an error, there is  no  evidence  of  an
injustice, as the outcome, discharge for misconduct, would still  have  been
the same if the case were processed as a dual action case.

The evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 20 May 2004, a copy of the Air Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant for review and response within 30  days.   As  of  this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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  note  at  the  time  the  applicant  was
administratively separated from active duty, he was being processed  through
disability  channels  but  was  discharged  prior  to  finalization  of  his
disability case.  The applicant’s case should have  been  forwarded  to  the
Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) for final  adjudication
of this “dual action” case.  It is important to  note  while  the  Personnel
Council performs a record review in dual action cases, no  personal  hearing
is involved.  Since the applicant is no longer on active  duty,  SAFPC  does
not  have  the  authority  to  decide  the  case  and  correct  the  record.
Nevertheless, they were asked to advise the Board as to what  decision  they
would likely have reached had the case  been  referred  to  them.   In  what
amounts to  an  advisory  opinion,  SAFPC  noted  there  was  no  causal  or
mitigating relationship between the applicant’s medical  condition  and  the
minor disciplinary infractions he  committed,  and  as  such,  the  previous
administrative discharge action should remain in effect.   Therefore,  while
it appears there was  a  procedural  error  in  processing  the  applicant’s
discharge, the Board is  persuaded  the  result  (discharge  not  disability
separation) would have been the same had the case been  referred  to  SAFPC.
Thus, the failure to refer the  case  to  SAFPC  under  these  circumstances
constitutes a harmless error.  In view of the foregoing and in  the  absence
of compelling evidence to the contrary, we  find  no  basis  upon  which  to
recommend granting the requested relief.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of an 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-
03246 in Executive Session on 14 July 2004, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Michael J. Novel, Member
                 Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated      2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 24 February 2004,
                 w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 February 2004.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated
               11 May 2004.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 May 2004.




                                OLGA M. CRERAR
                                Panel Chair