RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03053
INDEX CODE: 100.00
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 1 April 2006
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The reason for his discharge be changed.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The reason for his discharge is keeping him from obtaining government
employment. While on active duty he was prescribed mind/behavioral
altering medication due to an injury he received when he was struck in the
head by a golf ball. During a summary court-martial for insubordination,
the hospital’s chief of staff testified that the medications he was taking
were mind/behavioral altering in nature, resulting in his exoneration.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Prior to contracting his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 27
April 1978, the applicant had 3 months and 6 days of active service in the
Army National Guard.
He reported to the clinic on 18 October 1978, complaining of headaches,
anxiety, dizziness, and light headedness for the previous three months, and
was referred to the mental health clinic. On 27 October 1978, a mental
health clinic psychologist found no mental disorder but did state there
were indications of mild character logical problems. The applicant
reported to the emergency room on 24 July 1980 and indicated that he had
been struck on the left side of his head by a golf ball while performing
duty. He was placed on quarters for 24 hours and released to duty the next
day.
A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened at Little Rock AFB on 26 January
1981, and established the diagnosis of post-traumatic nervous instability,
and recommended he be reassigned to another hospital for observation,
treatment, and disposition. On 20 February 1981, he was evaluated at the
USAF Medical Center at Scott AFB and based on the diagnosis of post
traumatic cephalgia with significant functional overlay, it was recommended
that he meet another MEB. On 20 February 1981, another MEB convened and
established the diagnosis of post traumatic cephalgia with significant
functional overlay, and recommended that he be returned to duty.
On 9 October 1981, the commander notified him of his intent to initiate
administrative discharge action against him for apathy and defective
attitude. The commander indicated the following reasons for the action:
a. On 8 September 1978, the applicant failed to meet a scheduled
records review, for which he was counseled on 15 September 1978.
b. On 26 March 1980, he was found in room 322, Building 854,
drinking beer on duty, for which he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR),
dated 1 April 1980.
c. On 28 March 1980, he was involved in an altercation with the
Security Police outside Building 854, for which he was counseled by the
First Sergeant on 10 April 1980.
d. On 3 April 1980, he failed to return to his appointed place of
duty, to wit, the SMART truck, for which he was counseled on 5 April 1980.
e. On 4 April 1980, he failed to report for duty at the scheduled
time and did not advise his supervisors of his location, for which he was
counseled on 4 April 1980.
f. On 18 January 1981, he failed to return to his appointed place
of duty, for which an Article 15 was imposed on 3 March 1981, with
nonjudicial punishment consisting of reduction to the grade of airman first
class and forfeiture of $145.00 for one month which was waived upon final
appeal.
g. On 12 March 1981, he misrepresented facts to the Area Defense
Council concerning his copy of the Notification of Intent to Impose
Nonjudicial Punishment, dated 3 March 1981, for which he was verbally
counseled on 12 March 1981.
h. On 18 March 1981, he failed to go at the time prescribed to his
appointed place of duty, and was drunk on station, for which an Article 15
was imposed on 1 April 1981, with nonjudicial punishment consisting of
reduction to the grade of airman basic and 30 days of correctional custody.
i. On 9 July 1981, he failed to report at the scheduled time to
his appointed place of duty, for which he was counseled on 9 July 1981.
He underwent a separation physical on 14 October 1981 and was found
medically qualified for worldwide service. On 4 December 1981, he was
honorably discharged under the provisions of AFM 39-12 (Unsuitability –
Apathy, Defective Attitude). He received an RE Code of “2C,” which defined
means “involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge."
On 1 June 1982, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) awarded him a
compensable disability rating of 0% for residuals, fracture, left medial
malleolus, ankle and hemorrhoids, thrombosed, excised. On 25 October 1994,
the DVA awarded him a 20% rating for a seizure disorder.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records
is warranted and states, in part, that the medical facts and the pattern of
behavior reflect unsuitability for military duty, rather than an unfitting
medical consequence of the applicant’s injury. The applicant’s head injury
due to being hit by a golf ball was not severe and did not cause loss of
consciousness or any documented transient neurologic findings. Further, a
DVA neurologist opined the injury was clinically insignificant. Medical
and psychiatric evaluations found no neurologic condition or mental illness
that warranted disability discharge. Comprehensive evaluation by the DVA
several months after separation arrived at similar results.
The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 7
October 2005 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 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 error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree
with the opinion and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and
adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has
not been the victim of an error or injustice. 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 Docket Number BC-2004-03053
in Executive Session on 10 November 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member
Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Sep 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 6 Oct 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Oct 05.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2005-125
The Coast Guard medical record contains no evidence that the applicant suffered from a mental disability prior to his discharge. In addition there is no evidence in the record that from the time of the applicant's discharge from the Coast Guard in 1981 until 2000 that he was treated for any problems with his wrist. The fact that the DVA granted the applicant a service-connected disability for a wrist injury some twenty years after his discharge from the Coast Guard is not persuasive...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01726
On 7 and 23 June 1978, she failed to report for duty, for which she received two failures to repair letters. Upon the recommendation of the Air Force Personnel Board, on 24 June 1981, the Secretary of the Air Force approved her request to upgrade her RE code to RE-1. Although the applicant contends she should have been medically discharged, she provides no documentary evidence to support that she was unfit for continued military service at the time of her discharge from the Air Force.
CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2000-086
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On September 22, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s request for its untimeliness and lack of merit. According to Article 17-C-5, a CPEB was required to review the IMB report and make a finding as to whether the member was (1) fit for duty, (2) unfit for duty by rea- son of a condition or defect that was not a disability, or (3) unfit for duty by reason of a physical disability. The Board finds that Coast...
CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2001-091
The applicant stated that a Naval psychiatrist, who evaluated him in 199X at the request of the Coast Guard, supports his allegation that his Bipolar disease was incurred on and aggravated by his Coast Guard active duty service. He stated that the applicant needed to be "medically boarded from the Coast Guard" and recommended a medical board, which should have occurred while the applicant was on active duty. In recent statements on behalf of the applicant, CDR H (the flight surgeon), as...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2004-141
On September 12, 2002, a medical note indicated that the applicant was fit for duty. Under current law and service policy, the Coast Guard must presume that members with approved retirement requests are medically fit for retirement unless their medical condition makes them physically unable to perform in their assigned duties or the condition is found to be BCMR Final Decision for Docket No. (1) of the PDES Manual, the medical evidence provided by the applicant and available to the Coast...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2004-056
The same physician’s assistant who had conducted the applicant’s separation physical noted that there was some tenderness around the spine but that the applicant had a free range of motion without pain and “5/5 strength.” He took xrays; prescribed Motrin and Flexeril for the pain; ordered an MRI, which he noted that the cutter’s health services technician “will coordinate”; and noted that the appli- cant was FFFD (fit for full duty). of the Medical Manual states that the physical standards...
CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2004-056
The same physician’s assistant who had conducted the applicant’s separation physical noted that there was some tenderness around the spine but that the applicant had a free range of motion without pain and “5/5 strength.” He took xrays; prescribed Motrin and Flexeril for the pain; ordered an MRI, which he noted that the cutter’s health services technician “will coordinate”; and noted that the appli- cant was FFFD (fit for full duty). of the Medical Manual states that the physical standards...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000582
The applicant requests, in effect, that his character and reason for discharge be upgraded from an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) in lieu of trial by court-martial discharge to an honorable discharge due to physical disability. Also on 8 October 1980, after consulting with counsel and being advised of this rights and options, the applicant submitted a formal request under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011901
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 December 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080011901 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). However, the evidence of record provides no evidence to suggest the applicant was suffering from a disabling mental or medical condition at the time of discharge that would have supported his separation processing through medical channels.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03414
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03414 INDEX CODE: 128.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 7 JUNE 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for discharge be changed to reflect a medical reason that would not require recoupment of his enlistment bonus. The BCMR Medical Consultant states the applicant’s...