RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-00946-1
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His “Reason and Authority” for separation be changed to 
“Secretarial Authority,” instead of “Personality Disorder.”

2.  His diagnosis of Cervical Compressive Myelopathy and 
Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) be considered “unfit” conditions.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have been medically discharged based on the Air Force 
medical personnel failing to diagnose his physical spinal cord 
damage prior to enlistment and during his enlistment.  He was 
born with two extra vertebras resulting in such pain that would 
give a reason for his Aggressive Personality Disorder.  The 
military physician both intentionally or carelessly overlooked 
the matter.  He reported having trouble sleeping and suffered 
from depression.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the applicant’s DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the 
United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, on 2 Dec 70, he 
enlisted in the Regular Air Force.  
According to the applicant’s DD Form 214, on 20 Nov 71, he was 
honorably discharged from active duty under the authority of 
“Air Force Manual (AFM) 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, 
Misconduct, Personal Abuse of Drugs; Resignation or Request for 
Discharge for the Good of the Service; and Procedures for the 
Rehabilitation Program, paragraph 2-4B (Personality Disorder), 
Section A, Chapter 2.”  He was credited with 11 months and 
19 days of total active service.
The applicant provides no rationale as to why his failure to 
timely file should be waived in the interest of justice.






AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
change his narrative reason for separation.  Based on the 
documentation on file in the master personnel records, the 
discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive 
requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the 
discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not 
submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that 
occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no facts 
warranting a change to the narrative reason for separation.

On 3 Nov 71, the applicant's commander notified him that he was 
recommending discharge for being diagnosed with "an immature 
personality, aggressive, a character and behavior disorder." 

On 3 Nov 71, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
notification of discharge.

The case was found legally sufficient.  The discharge authority 
approved the separation and directed the applicant be discharged 
with an honorable discharge without probation and 
rehabilitation.

The complete DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit B.

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends approval.  The Medical 
Consultant suggests the applicant’s record be amended to reflect 
the narrative reason for separation as Secretarial Authority.  
Based on the applicant’s expansive employment history since 
leaving the military, it is as likely as not that any unsuitable 
pattern of behavior present in November 1971, at the age of 19, 
has evolved into a socially acceptable pattern of behavior.  It 
should also be noted that the applicant’s frequent trouble 
sleeping and depression is recorded to have begun since 5 Sep 
71, nine months after the applicant’s service entry.  The fact 
that a specific date [5 Sep 71] has been identified as the date 
of onset of the applicant’s troubles, it is not compatible with 
manifestations of congenital cervical spine defect or 
obstructive sleep apnea, both diagnosed over three decades 
later.  However, it does suggest some relationship with an acute 
stressful event may have occurred at or about that time.  
Furthermore, despite the allegation of failure to properly 
evaluate, there is no evidence that either the recorded 
observations warranted a Medical Hold and processing as a 
medical basis for release from military service.

The Board may choose to deny the applicant’s petition based on 
untimeliness.  However, the Board may also choose to change the 
narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority based 
upon his extensive post-service accomplishments and the 
burdensome characterization of his service during a youthful 
period.

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reiterates that he has provided positive evidence 
that he was born with two extra vertebras and this condition 
presents severe pain and pressure on his spine, to the degree 
that he could become paralyzed at any time.  The evidence he 
presented proves that he could have become paralyzed at any time 
during his military service even while sleeping.  Therefore, he 
is seeking compensation for his current medical condition and 
request that it be noted in his discharge.  Additionally, he 
agrees with the recommendation to change his reason of discharge 
to Secretarial Authority but also wants it to still show that 
his discharge was honorable and that he is entitled to all of 
his benefits (Exhibit E).


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 an error or injustice to warrant 
changing his narrative reason for separation.  We note that the 
BCMR Medical Consultant recommends approval suggesting the 
applicant be given the benefit of the doubt based on his 
extensive post-service accomplishments and the burdensome 
characterization of his service during a youthful period.  
However, based on the evidence it appears that the applicant's 
discharge was properly adjudicated and we found no evidence 
which would lead us to believe that his separation was in error 
or contrary to the governing Air Force instructions.  Therefore, 
we agree with the opinion and recommendation of DPPRS and adopt 
the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. 
Additionally, the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence 
to warrant changing his medical diagnosis of Cervical 
Compressive Myelopathy and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) to 
reflect they were unfitting conditions leading to his discharge.  
Therefore we conclude the applicant has failed to sustain his 
burden of proof that he has been the victim of an error or 
injustice.  In view of the above and in the absence of evidence 
to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting any of 
the relief sought in this application.


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2007-00946-1 in Executive Session on 14 Jan 15, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

		                     , Panel Chair
		                       , Member
		                  , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Nov 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPSR Advisory, dated 4 May 07.
Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 11 Sep 14.
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, 26 Sep 14.
Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Oct 14.