Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03053
Original file (BC-2004-03053.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

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

Similar Decisions

  • CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2005-125

    Original file (2005-125.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2005-01726.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (2000-086.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (2001-091.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (2004-141.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (2004-056.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (20150000582.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (20080011901.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2004-03414.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...