RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03869
                                        INDEX CODE:  110.00

                                        COUNSEL:  DAV

                                        HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  20 JUN 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under honorable conditions  (general)  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was discharged unjustly.  He was medically unfit to continue active
duty service.  He should have received an  honorable  discharge  under
medical conditions.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 15 January 2003, the applicant enlisted in the  Regular  Air  Force
(RegAF) as an airman basic (AB) for a period of six years.

On  8  October  2003,  the  applicant  requested  an  evaluation  for
Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD).  The medical note states “Pt states
he is always moving and doing  something  with  his  hands,  and  his
instructors told him to come and be checked for ADD.”  States he  was
treated from ages 9-11 for it and was medicated with  Ritalin.”   The
physician     determined     the     applicant     had      Attention
Deficit/Hyperactivity  Disorder  (ADHD)  and  referred  him   for   a
psychological evaluation.

On 16 October 2003, the applicant was seen at the Life Skills Support
Center (LSSC) for an assessment for symptoms consistent with ADHD.

On 20 October 2003, the applicant was diagnosed with  ADHD,  Combined
Type, Adult Persistent and was prescribed Strattera.

On 3 November 2003, a medical note indicates the applicant  had  some
improvement  with  attention,  including  the  absence  of   reported
disciplinary problems.

The mental health evaluation dated on 14 November 2003, indicated the
applicant’s  report  of  symptoms  of  ADHD  since  childhood.    The
evaluator contacted the applicant’s mother who reported the applicant
had a history of having been diagnosed and treated for ADHD since the
first grade.

On 6 May 2004, the applicant was notified of his  commander’s  intent
to recommend him for discharge  under  the  provision  of  Air  Force
Instruction  (AFI)  36-3208,  paragraph  5.49,   Minor   Disciplinary
Infractions.  The specific reasons for the discharge action were:

      a.    On 14 March 2003, the applicant failed a room  inspection.
For this misconduct, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).

      b.    On 22  July  2003,  the  applicant  was  derelict  in  the
performance of his duties in that he failed to  attempt  to  pass  his
Electronic Intelligence test.  For this  misconduct,  he  received  an
Article 15 on 5 September 2003.

      c.    On 30 July 2003, the applicant displayed disrespect to the
flag, airmen leader and the uniform.  For this misconduct, he received
a Letter of Counseling (LOC).

      d.    On 5 August 2003,  the  applicant  was  smoking  while  in
uniform in violation of the phase program.  For  this  misconduct,  he
received  an  Excellence/Discrepancy  Report,  AETC  Form  341  and  a
Memorandum for Record (MOR) and on 9  August  2003,  he  was  assigned
Remedial Military Training (RMT).

      e.    On 14 August 2003, the applicant failed to go to a  casual
formation.  This was the fourth formation he missed  in  five  months.
For this misconduct, he received two AETC Form 341s and an LOC.

      f.    On 27 October 2003, the applicant received an  Article  15
for disobeying a lawful order.

      g.    On 5 February 2004, the  applicant  received  an  LOR  for
making  a  false  official  statement  and  committing  conspiracy  in
violation of Article 92.

In the notification for discharge, the commander cited  the  following
derogatory information:

      a.    On 8 January 2003, the applicant was  disrespectful  to  a
fellow airman.  For this misconduct, he received an AETC Form 341.

      b.    On 7 March 2003, the applicant failed to  go  to  physical
conditioning (PC).  For this misconduct, he received an AETC Form 341.

      c.    On 19 March 2003,  the  applicant  failed  an  open  ranks
inspection of his uniform.  For this misconduct, he received  an  AETC
Form 341.

      d.    On March 2003, the applicant received an AETC Form 341 for
being in the day room at 1130 hours wearing half  of  his  uniform,  a
superman shirt and wearing a large necklace and displaying attitude.

      e.    On 5 April 2003, the applicant received an AETC  Form  341
for using a cell phone while in uniform,  a  violation  of  the  phase
program.

      f.  On 14 May 2003, the applicant  failed  to  go  to  a  casual
formation.  For this misconduct, he received an AETC Form 341.

      g.    On 22 May 2003, the applicant received an  AETC  Form  341
for not having his phase card at PC.

      h.    On 24 July 2003, the applicant received an AETC  Form  341
for failing a room inspection.

      i.    On 25 July 2003,  the  applicant  failed  to  go  to  flag
detail.  For this misconduct, he received an AETC Form 341.

      j.    On 4 August 2003, the applicant received an AETC Form  341
for his uniform not being in compliance with AFI 36-2903.

      k.    On 16 September 2003, the applicant received an AETC  Form
341  for  being  disrespectful  to  a  noncommissioned   officer   and
displaying a poor attitude.

      l.    On 22 September 2003, the applicant received an AETC  Form
341 for climbing a light  pole  in  the  courtyard  while  dressed  as
Spiderman and not having any AETC Form 341 on his person.

      m.    The applicant received an AETC Form 341  on  30  September
2003 for being disrespectful to a noncommissioned officer.

      n.    On 9 January 2004, the applicant received an AETC Form 341
for failing a room inspection.

      o.    On 9 February 2004, the applicant received  an  AETC  Form
341 for missing a formation.

The commander advised the applicant of his  right  to  consult  legal
counsel and that military legal counsel had been  obtained  for  him;
submit statements in his own behalf;  and  that  failure  to  consult
counsel or to submit statements would  constitute  a  waiver  of  his
right to do so.

On 12 February 2004, after  consulting  with  counsel,  the  applicant
invoked his right to submit a statement.

A legal review  was  conducted  in  which  the  staff  judge  advocate
recommended  the  applicant  receive  a  general   discharge   without
probation and rehabilitation.

On 11 May 2004, the discharge authority directed  the  applicant  be
discharged  with  a  general   discharge   without   probation   and
rehabilitation.

Applicant was discharged on 12 May 2004,  in  the  grade  of  airman
first class with an under honorable conditions (general)  discharge,
in accordance with AFI 36-3208 (Misconduct).  He served  1  year,  3
months and 28 days of active duty service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief Medical  Consultant,  AFBCMR,  states  the  applicant  while
serving on active duty  was  diagnosed  and  treated  for  ADHD.   The
evidence of records indicates the applicant’s ADHD existed since early
childhood  and  had  been  previously  diagnosed  and  treated.    The
evaluating providers determined the applicant’s condition  contributed
to his pattern of misconduct and  based  on  significant  response  to
medication recommended the  applicant  be  retained  on  active  duty.
However, in the months following  the  initiation  of  treatment,  the
applicant  continued  a  pattern  of  misconduct  which  led   to   an
administrative discharge.

The    Medical    Consultant    further    states    ADHD     is     a
constitutional/developmental condition that  is  noncompensable  under
the rules of the disability evaluation system (DES).  It is considered
unsuiting and may form the basis for an administrative discharge under
the provisions for unsuitability.  Separations  under  this  provision
normally afford  an  honorable  characterization  of  service  with  a
narrative  reason  for  discharge  of  “personality  disorder”  and  a
reenlistment code that bars reenlistment.  The policy outlined in  AFI
36-208,  paragraph  5.11.  Conditions  that  Interfere  with  Military
Service, specifically states “The existence of a condition that  is  a
basis for discharge under this provision does not bar  separation  for
any other reason authorized in this instruction.  Discharge under this
provision is not appropriate if  the  airman’s  record  would  support
discharge for another reason, such  as  misconduct  or  unsatisfactory
performance.”  The applicant’s condition does not impair  his  ability
to know right from wrong or adhere  to  the  right  and  therefore  is
accountable for his behavior.  A review of the applicant’s  misconduct
finds some of the misconduct can be attributed to or at least in  part
to his ADHD,  but  also  it  finds  misconduct  that  is  willful  and
inconsistent with continued service in the  Air  Force.   The  Medical
Consultant concludes that the preponderance of the evidence  does  not
show an error or injustice resulted  when  the  applicant’s  commander
chose  to  discharge  him  under  the   provisions   for   misconduct.
Therefore, he recommends the requested relief be denied.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 2
December 2005, for review and response.  As of this date, no  response
has been received by this office.

On 9 January 2006, the Board staff forwarded a copy of the  Air  Force
evaluation to the applicant’s counsel for review and response.  As  of
this date, no response has been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or an injustice  to  warrant  upgrading  the
applicant’s discharge.  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 Medical Consultant and adopt his
rationale 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.  The applicant’s contention  is  duly  noted;  however,  he
reported during his mental health evaluation that he was diagnosed and
treated for ADHD as a child.  The applicant was treated for  the  ADHD
and displayed improvement  in  symptoms  and  behavior.   However,  in
January 2004,  he  again  was  being  disciplined  for  a  variety  of
infractions, which led  to  his  commander  initiating  administrative
action for discharge for misconduct.  The applicant’s commander  noted
the applicant’s diagnosis of ADHD along with  the  report  of  a  good
response to treatment, but concluded the applicant’s continued pattern
of misconduct was not caused  substantially  by  his  treated  medical
condition.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,  we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the  relief  sought  in
this application.

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  issue(s)  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-
2004-03869 in  Executive  Session  on  23  February  2006,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
                 Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Nov 04, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated
                       30 Nov 05.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Dec 05.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Jan 06.




                                        LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                        Panel Chair