RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00105
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  11 JUL 2006


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be changed to  a
medical discharge or early release separation.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He had been under medical care for  almost  a  year  prior  to  his
discharge due to nerve irritation and was not sleeping much at all.
 His medical  records  reflect  he  had  surgery  for  ulnar  nerve
relocation and never received therapy, which has  caused  him  many
problems.

He has been dealing with pain and discomfort and  needs  to  change
his occupation.  He has not been able to utilize his  GI  Bill  for
school and does not know if he can stay in his present job.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  12  Aug  85  for  a
period of six years.  Prior to the events  under  review  applicant
was promoted to the grade of airman first class with  an  effective
date and date of rank of 25 Sep 85.

On  11  Jun  87,   the   squadron   section   commander   initiated
administrative  discharge  action   against   the   applicant   for
misconduct,  specifically  for   discreditable   involvement   with
military and civilian authorities.  The specific  reasons  for  the
proposed action were:

      On 6 Jan 87, applicant was  driving  while  intoxicated,  and
obtained and  possessed  a  fraudulent  driver’s  license  for  the
purpose of purchasing alcoholic beverages.  For  this  offense,  he
received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).

      On or about (o/a) 13 Apr 87 and 20 Apr  87,  applicant  stole
money in the value of $47, which was the property  of  another  Air
Force member; and o/a the last week of  Apr  87,  he  stole  a  car
stereo in the value of more than $100, which was  the  property  of
the same airman.   For  these  offenses,  he  received  Article  15
punishment.  His punishment consisted of reduction to the grade  of
airman basic.

On that same date, applicant acknowledged receipt of the  discharge
notification.   On  11  Jun  87,  after  consulting  with  counsel,
applicant waived his right to submit statements in his own  behalf.
On 19 Jun 87, the staff judge advocate found the case  procedurally
correct and factually sufficient to support the discharge,  without
probation and rehabilitation (P&R).

On 23 Jun 87, the discharge authority  approved  a  general  (under
honorable conditions)  discharge  and  stated  that  probation  and
rehabilitation were not deemed appropriate.

The Report of  Medical  Examination,  dated  15  Jun  87,  reflects
applicant was qualified for separation.

On 29 Jun 87, the applicant was discharged under the provisions  of
AFR 39-10 by  reason  of  Misconduct  –  Pattern  of  Discreditable
Involvement with Military and Civilian  Authorities,  with  service
characterized as general (under honorable conditions).   He  served
1 year, 10 months, and 18 days on active duty.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  AFBCMR  Medical  Consultant  reviewed  this  application   and
recommended denial.  Applicant was administratively separated  with
a general discharge on 29 Jun  87  for  misconduct,  after  1 year,
10 months, and 18 day on active duty.

A review of  the  service  medical  records  shows  that  prior  to
entering the service the applicant’s left elbow  was  broken  by  a
blow from a baseball bat requiring surgical repair  and  subsequent
removal of  hardware.   At  the  time  of  entry  on  active  duty,
examination of  the  elbow  disclosed  satisfactory  function.   In
Jun 86, the applicant presented with complaints of  nerve  problems
with  his  elbow.   In  Sep  86,  he  was   diagnosed   with   Life
Circumstances Problem resolving.  He was entered into group therapy
and attended two sessions, but did not attend  10  other  scheduled
sessions.  Following his arrest for driving under the influence  of
alcohol, he was entered into an outpatient  rehabilitation  program
and a mental health evaluation indicated there was  no  psychiatric
illness present.

On 25 Jan 87, with three days  of  left  elbow  pain  after  weight
lifting, he was subsequently evaluated by orthopedics and neurology
and diagnosed with ulnar  nerve  compression  associated  with  his
prior injury.  Electro-diagnostic testing and clinical  examination
indicated at most a mild sensory  compressive  neuropathy  at  that
time.  Persistent symptoms led to orthopedic surgery on  8 May  87,
to move the nerve to a location where it would not be subjected  to
compression (ulnar nerve  transposition).   Separation  examination
concluded that the applicant was medically world wide qualified for
duty.  The nature of the ulnar nerve compression  and  the  surgery
with a result that indicated full return to duty  did  not  require
evaluation in the disability system.  On  25  Jun  87,  a  hospital
examination verified that  his  elbow  condition  did  not  warrant
placement on medical hold and medical evaluation board.

The Military Disability Evaluation  System  (DES),  established  to
maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can  by  law,  only  offer
compensation for those  diseases  or  injuries  which  specifically
rendered a member unfit for  continued  active  service,  were  the
cause for termination of their career, and then only for the degree
of impairment present at the time of separation.  The mere presence
of a medical condition does not qualify  a  member  for  disability
evaluation  or  disability  benefits.   For  an  individual  to  be
considered unfit for military service,  there  must  be  a  medical
condition that prevents performance of any work  commensurate  with
rank and experience.  At the time of separation,  his  ulnar  nerve
condition had recently been treated with surgery with good  results
and all evidence at the time indicated full return to duty.

DOD policy states that members who  are  pending  separation  under
provisions that authorize a characterization of  service  of  Under
Other  Than  Honorable  Conditions  (UOTHC),  even  if  the  actual
characterization that the member  receives  is  general,   are  not
eligible for referral into the disability evaluation system  unless
otherwise provided by Service policies.  The  Air  Force  Personnel
Council determines under which basis for discharge the airman  will
be  separated,  misconduct  or   disability,   as   well   as   the
characterization  of  service.   In  this  case,  the   applicant’s
condition did not warrant disability processing at the time of  his
separation and dual action processing was not  indicated.   If  his
case had been processed, based on  policy,  the  Personnel  Council
would have directed a general  discharge  for  misconduct  and  not
disability discharge.  Action and  disposition  in  this  case  are
proper  and  equitable  reflecting  compliance   with   Air   Force
directives that implement the law.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 14 Oct 05 for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).

___________________________________________________________________

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.   The  applicant  requests  his  general   (under   honorable
conditions) discharge be changed to a medical  discharge  or  early
release separation.  However, we found no evidence which would lead
us to  believe  that  the  applicant's  separation  or  reason  for
separation were in error or contrary to  the  governing  Air  Force
regulations.  Additionally,  while  the  applicant  did  experience
medical problems while on active duty, we found  no  evidence  that
his medical conditions at the time of his  discharge  rendered  him
unfit for continued military service.   The  applicant’s  case  has
undergone an exhaustive review by the BCMR Medical  Consultant  and
there is nothing in the evidence provided  by  the  applicant  that
would overcome his assessment of the  case.   Therefore,  we  agree
with his recommendation and adopt the rationale  expressed  as  the
basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his
burden that he has suffered either an error or  an  injustice.   In
the absence of persuasive 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-2005-00105 in Executive Session on 29 November 2005,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
      Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
      Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Dec 04, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 13 Oct 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Oct 05.




                                   MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                   Panel Chair