RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00807
            INDEX CODE:  108.00, 110.00
            COUNSEL:  NO
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

      MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 18 Sep 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

2.  His discharge be changed to reflect he was either medically  retired  or
discharged with entitlement to disability severance pay.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In August of 1998 it was discovered he suffered from a cavernous angioma  in
the brain stem.  His condition gradually got worse  and  he  eventually  met
before a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB)  which  recommended  his  discharge
with severance pay.

After he joined the Air Force in 1985 he began one of  the  most  successful
career tracts in the Air Force.  He had selected  assignments  such  as  the
youngest officer to be assigned to the Presidential Mandated  Strategic  Air
Command Airborne  Command  Post  to  being  hand-picked  to  man  the  newly
organized Air combat Command Headquarters and on to  the  Inspector  General
team.  His  Officer  Performance  Reports  (OPRs)  show  that  he  was  well
deserving of the "Top 5%" of all Air Force officers  and  on  two  occasions
selected as the Best Senior Planner in all the  Air  Force.   After  he  was
stricken with his illness his  life  literally  "went  to  hell  in  a  hand
basket."  He lost his marriage, kids, and became obsessed with gambling  and
video games.  His memory was such that he carried a list each  day  to  help
remember what he was supposed to do.  It is amazing  to  him  that  not  one
doctor related his change in ability, judgment, and professionalism  to  his
brain disease.  His Air Force career came to an end when he did not pay  his
Government Credit Card and used it on a  gambling  trip  in  the  summer  of
1999.  In March of 2000 an  Administrative  Discharge  Board  was  held  and
recommended his discharge  under  honorable  conditions.   Through  out  the
entire process his previous work  and  effort  was  highlighted  by  general
officers, his contemporaries and subordinates.

The Air Force committed three great failures on his  behalf.   First,  after
his initial diagnosis his case should have been put in front  of  a  Medical
Evaluation Board (MEB) at that time.  One of the more important  aspects  of
his case is that the  cavernous  angioma  happened  before  any  infractions
occurred.   Second,  the  Administrative  Review   Board,   his   superiors,
physicians, neurologists or neurosurgeons did  not  correlate  his  behavior
with his  disease.   Every  aspect  of  his  life  began  its  death  spiral
immediately after his first mid-brain bleed.  Third, prior to his  discharge
board, the medical board determined that based on his  brain  stem  angioma,
he was medically unfit for duty.  He would have been discharged much  sooner
but his discharge  was  postponed  time  after  time  until  the  PEB  could
complete its findings.

In  support  of  his  request,  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,
documentation  associated  with  a  Congressional   inquiry,   documentation
extracted from his  medical  and  military  personnel  records,  awards  and
recognition letters, and medical information retrieved from the internet.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve on 21 Dec 84 and was  discharged
on 28 Jan 85.  He enlisted in the Regular Air Force Air Force on 29  Jan  85
and was discharged on 25 Apr 85 in order to accept  a  commission.   He  was
appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force on  26  Apr  85  and
was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on that  same  date.   On  1
Feb 95, he was separated from  the  Regular  Air  Force  under  the  Special
Separation Program Benefit early release program in  the  grade  of  captain
and was transferred to the Air Force Reserve.  He served on  various  active
duty tours (Stat Tour/AGR Tour) from 15 Oct  96  through  31 May  01  during
which he was progressively promoted to the grade of major.

On 5 Jan 00, applicant was notified  by  his  commander  of  his  intent  to
recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-3206, paragraphs 3.6.1 and 3.6.4.   The  specific  reasons  for  this
action were:  1.) His failure to pay his government Nations Bank  Visa  Card
in full and on time; 2.) He uttered checks to Nations Bank  in  the  amounts
of $755.12, $1,864.68, $2,500.00, and $1,590.00 with insufficient  funds  in
his checking account; and 3.) He  wrongfully  used  his  government  Nations
Bank Visa Card for unauthorized purposes.  He was advised of his  rights  in
this matter.

A Board of Inquiry convened on 29 Mar 00 and  recommended  he  be  separated
from the Air Force Reserve with a general discharge.  AFRC/JA  reviewed  the
case file and recommended the case be forward thru AFPC to the Secretary  of
the Air Force Personnel Council and USAF/JAG  reviewed  the  case  file  and
found it legally sufficient and  recommended  his  discharge  from  the  Air
Force Reserve.

On  27  Sep  00,  applicant  was  placed  on  medical  hold  for  Disability
Evaluation System processing.

An MEB convened on 21 Feb 01 and referred his case to an  Informal  Physical
Evaluation Board (IPEB) with diagnoses of cavernous  angioma,  hypertension,
hyperlipidema, and tobacco abuse disorder.  On 12 Mar  01,  the  IPEB  found
him unfit for further military service based on  the  compensable  diagnosis
of cavernous angioma.  The IPEB recommended that he  be  discharged  with  a
combined compensable rating of 10 percent.  The applicant  agreed  with  the
findings and recommended disposition of the IPEB.

On 1 May 01, his discharge and disability proceedings were forwarded to  the
Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) as  a  dual  action  to
determine if  applicant  would  be  discharged  for  disability  reasons  or
administratively with a general discharge.  On 18 May 01, SAFPC directed  he
be discharged by execution of the  approved  AFI  36-3206  action.   He  was
discharged on 31 May 01.  He served a total  of  15  years  and  17 days  on
active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states  his  discharge  was  consistent
with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the   discharge
regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial.   The  Medical  Consultant
States the applicant  argues  that  his  vascular  malformation  caused  the
behavior leading to administrative discharge.  His lesion was  in  the  pons
(cerebellar peduncle at the pontine - diencephalons  junction)  and  lesions
in this area are associated with focal neurologic  symptoms  including  loss
of sensation, weakness, and  disturbances  of  coordination  (including  eye
movement).  Discrete lesions  in  this  location  are  not  associated  with
disorders of impulse control, compulsive behaviors (including gambling),  or
cognitive disturbances.  For a lesion in this location to  have  effects  on
cognition or behavior it would require severe bleeding which would  manifest
not merely in cognitive or behavioral disturbances  but  with  marked  motor
and  sensory  deficits  that  would  overshadow   the   cognitive/behavioral
effects.   It  is  plausible  that  after  a  severe  bleed   (or   surgical
intervention) there may be residual cognitive effects but there  would  also
be severe disabling residual sensorimotor deficits as  well.   There  is  no
evidence whatsoever of a bleed of such magnitude  prior  to  or  during  the
time of his misconduct.  His lesion was in the small range reported  in  the
literature and his objective neurologic deficits were very  mild  consistent
with the small size.  The size of his  hemangioma  remained  stable  without
evidence of re-bleeding from the time of diagnosis to the time he  underwent
an MEB, two years later.   Evidence  of  the  records  indicates  misconduct
during a time of clinical quiescence  and  apparently  continued  good  duty
performance.  There is no  documentary  evidence  of  cognitive  disturbance
prior to his discharge.  Evidence of record reflects a pattern  of  decision
making and conduct leading to his financial circumstances and misuse of  the
government travel card that preceded the initial onset of  symptoms  of  his
cavernous hemangioma.

The Medical Consultant's complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded to the Air Force evaluation through his congressman  and
states he was diagnosed with a Brain Stem Cavernoma in August  of  1998  and
was told at the time it was not a question of IF it would  bleed  more,  but
when.  His first night at home after his procedure he had his first bout  of
double vision.  He was rushed to the  emergency  room.   The  prognosis  was
that those  types  of  symptoms  and  deficits  were  to  be  expected.   He
continued with numbness on his right  side,  double  vision  episodes,  body
jerks and he developed a "zoning out" phase.  All of this was prior  to  any
charges or disciplinary action brought against him and was around  the  same
time he was having cognitive, impulse  and  judgment  impairments.   He  was
having daily zoning out conditions daily lasting for a few minutes  followed
by numbness or fog as if he were medicated or drunk.

He had and continues to have small and  large  bleeds  since  he  was  first
diagnosed.  The Medical Consultant wants  to  place  emphasis  on  the  MRIs
conducted at the time, while he fails to mention  that  while  the  MRI  may
show the same size or stability at the time of the MRI,  it  does  not  show
any reabsorption or hemorrhaged blood back into  the  brain  or  dissipation
after small bleeds.  He continued to experience a  variety  of  neurological
symptoms, was having numerous small hemorrhages and  rehemorrhages  for  the
entire time, and continues to have them along  with  the  major  bleed  last
year.   He  had  these  symptoms  and  problems  with  both   physical   and
neurological issues to judgment and impulse problems from the  time  of  the
initial bleed, prior to any disciplinary issues clear  up  until  this  very
day.  His visit to his physician in which he  confided  he  had  zoning  out
problems proves the  Medical  Consultant  is  incorrect  that  there  is  no
medical documentation that shows  recurring  or  new  neurological  symptoms
during the period of time of his  misconduct.   The  Medical  Consultant  is
wrong stating that based on the location of his lesion it would  not  impair
his judgment or contribute  to  any  of  his  actions.   He  has  previously
submitted facts that show he went from an outstanding officer to  one  under
disciplinary  proceedings.   A  document  provided  from  the   Journal   of
Neurology  Neurosurgery  and  Psychiatry  on  seven   cases   of   cognitive
dysfunction after isolated  brain  stem  insult  shows  high  prevalence  of
cognitive dysfunction was observed and proven by test.

His compete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   After  careful  consideration  of  the
evidence submitted in support of his appeal, we are not persuaded  that  the
applicant's administrative discharge was erroneous or  unjust.   Applicant's
contentions are  duly  noted;  however,  the  evidence  presented  does  not
convince us that the medical condition from which he suffered  at  the  time
rendered him incapable of distinguishing right from  wrong  and,  assumably,
to adhere to the right.  Because we have seen nothing which, in our  opinion
successfully refutes the professional assessment of the  Medical  Consultant
and due to the  multiplicity  and  serious  nature  of  his  misconduct,  we
believe that the applicant bears some responsibility  for  his  predicament.
The applicant's discharge processing was proper and in compliance  with  the
applicable directives, we see no evidence  that  he  was  denied  rights  to
which entitled, and it appears  that  all  appropriate  considerations  were
given to the matters presented before the  deciding  officials.   Therefore,
we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force  offices  of
primary responsibility and adopt  their  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our
conclusion that the applicant has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or
injustice.  In the absence of persuasive 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 issues involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________


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-2006-
00807 in Executive Session on 17 Aug 06, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
      Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
      Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Mar 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 29 Mar 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 7 Jul 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jul 06.
    Exhibit F.  Congressional Letter, dated 25 Jul 06, w/atchs.




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair