Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-03590
Original file (BC-2004-03590.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03590
            INDEX CODE:  108.00

            COUNSEL:  DISABLED AMERICAN
                                 VETERANS

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  26 May 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect he was  discharged  by  reason  of
physical disability based on his conditions of migraine headaches  and
costochondritis.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has received collection notices for recoupment  of  his  enlistment
bonus based on a breach of his contract.   He  believes  he  is  being
unjustly pursued for these monies.  Prior to suffering  from  migraine
headaches and costochondritis, his service was very good.

In support of his appeal, the applicant  provided  extracts  from  his
military personnel and medical records,  and  documentation  from  the
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  9  May  02  for  a
period of six years in the grade of airman basic.

On 19 Aug 03, the applicant’s  commander  notified  him  that  he  was
recommending the applicant  be  discharged  from  the  Air  Force  for
conditions that  interfere  with  military  service,  specifically,  a
mental disorder.  The reason for this action was  that  on  14 Jul 03,
the applicant was diagnosed with an  unspecified  adjustment  disorder
that significantly impaired his ability to function effectively in the
military environment.  The applicant was advised of his rights in  the
matter and that an honorable discharge would be recommended.

On 10 Sep 03, the discharge authority approved  the  discharge  action
and directed the applicant be furnished an honorable discharge.

On 11 Sep  03,  the  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-3208  (Personality  Disorder)  in  the  grade  of
airman first class.  He was credited with one year, four  months,  and
two days of active service.

The remaining  relevant  facts  pertaining  to  this  application  are
contained in the letter prepared by the Medical Consultant.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Medical Consultant recommended denial.  He believes the action and
disposition  in  this  case  were  proper  and  equitable   reflecting
compliance  with  Air  Force  directives  that  implement   the   law.
Therefore, no change in the records is warranted.

A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is  at  Exhibit
C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 3 Jan
06 for review and response.  As of this date,  no  response  has  been
received by this office (Exhibit D).

A copy of the  Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  counsel  on
12 Jan 06 for review and response.  As of this date, no  response  has
been received by this office (Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

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  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case.
However, we find it insufficient to override the rationale provided by
the  Medical  Consultant.   The  evidence  of  record  indicates   the
applicant was involuntarily discharged as a result of being  diagnosed
with an unspecified adjustment disorder  that  significantly  impaired
his ability to  function  effectively  in  the  military  environment.
After reviewing the facts and circumstances of this case, we  find  no
evidence that would lead us to  believe  the  applicant's  reason  for
separation was improper or contrary to the governing directives  under
which it was effected.  In view of the above, and in  the  absence  of
evidence that, at  time  of  his  separation  from  active  duty,  the
applicant was unfit to perform the duties  of  his  rank  and  office,
within the meaning of the law, we agree with the recommendation of the
Medical Consultant and adopt  his  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our
decision that the applicant  has  failed  to  sustain  his  burden  of
establishing  he  has  suffered  either  an  error  or  an  injustice.
Accordingly, we find no compelling basis to recommend favorable action
on his request.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of   the   issues   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
2004-03590 in Executive Session on 15 Feb 06, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
      Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member
      Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Nov 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 27 Dec 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jan 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 Jan 06.




                                   KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02398

    Original file (BC-2003-02398.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s medical records indicate she began experiencing headaches during pregnancy but they markedly increased two months following her delivery in Nov 01. The IPEB concluded her headaches were unfitting for continued military services, rated the headaches at 10%, and recommended discharge with severance pay. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01634

    Original file (BC-2005-01634.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    She sought care in Sep 03 and was diagnosed with asthma based on clinical history and PFTs showing mild obstruction to airflow and response to treatment with bronchodilator. Medical standards for continued military duty indicate that asthma, recurrent bronchospasm, or reactive airway disease, unless due to well- defined avoidable precipitant cause is disqualifying for worldwide duty. A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02576

    Original file (BC-2003-02576.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 20 Feb 04, applicant’s DD Form 214 was administratively corrected/reissued reflecting the narrative reason for separation (Item 28) as “Secretarial Authority.” _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant stated that the applicant was not discharged due to her ovarian cyst (although recurrent disabling pain due to this condition is disqualifying for entry). At the time a member is separated from the Air Force, they...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03087

    Original file (BC-2005-03087.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03087 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 11 APRIL 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code “4C” be changed to allow him to reenter military service. On 23 August 1995, the MEB reviewed the clinical evidence and recommended...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02262

    Original file (BC-2005-02262.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02262 INDEX CODE: 100.06 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 23 Jan 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code on her DD Form 214 be changed so that she can enlist in the Air Force Reserve (USAFR). In a mental health entry, dated 9 Dec 99, she reported feeling...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02937

    Original file (BC-2002-02937.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Available Department of Veterans Administration (DVA) medical documentation shows that in 1999 she still reported symptoms of the conditions for which she was disability discharged. The documentation provided is insufficient to show that the applicant is now fit for active duty. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the BCMR Medical Consultant and the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00308

    Original file (BC-2005-00308.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his application, applicant provided a personal letter, and copies of his medical records. On 12 July 2004, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) concluded that no single problem was individually unfitting but that combined, the applicant's chronic neck pain secondary to degenerative disk disease associated with vagal response syncopal episodes, right upper extremity paresthesias, migraine headaches and mood disorder were unfitting for continued military service. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01229

    Original file (BC-2005-01229.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board denied his case on 30 Aug 94. Additional details regarding the circumstances of the applicant’s BCD and the AFBCMR decision are provided at the military personnel record (Exhibit B) and the Record of Proceedings (ROP), dated 4 Nov 94 (Exhibit C). A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01018

    Original file (BC-2007-01018.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01018 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 3 October 2008 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His honorable discharge be changed to reflect a medical discharge. His request through the Consolidated Base Personnel Office (CBPO) for a medical discharge c. His...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00515

    Original file (BC-2005-00515.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The preponderance of evidence of evaluation and testing is consistent with the 10% rating. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded he should be granted a medical retirement. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 1 May 06.