RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00654
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  3 AUG 08

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was given a general discharge for a  medical  disability  instead  of  an
honorable discharge because he  was  pending  an  administrative  separation
while the medical board reviewed his case.  His argument now is the same  as
then, the problems he was having  at  work  were  directly  related  to  his
illness.  It has been 16 years since his discharge and  he  is  working  and
still has the disability.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy of his DD Form  214
– Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  on  11  December  1984  in  the
grade of airman basic.  He had been promoted to the grade  of  airman  first
class having assumed that grade effective and with a  date  of  rank  of  11
October 1986.  On 31 March 1989, applicant was notified by his commander  of
his intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force  under  the
provisions of AFR 39-10, section H,  paragraph  5-46  –  minor  disciplinary
infractions.  The specific reasons for this action were as follow:

On or about 31 August 1988, the applicant failed to follow proper  technical
data procedures, for this he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).

On or about 27 September 1988, the applicant failed to report  for  duty  on
time, for this he received an LOR.

On or about 1  October  1988,  the  applicant  failed  to  go  at  the  time
prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit:  Building Tab Vee 32,  he
received an Article 15, dated  12  October  1988.   The  punishment  imposed
consisted of a reduction in grade from senior airman to airman first  class,
a forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for  two  months  and  45  days  extra
duties.  Reduction to airman first class was suspended until 10 April  1989,
after which time it would have been remitted without further action,  unless
sooner vacated.

On 28 November 1988, applicant received a vacation of suspended sentence  of
an Article 15 he received, on or about 4 November 1988, where he  failed  to
go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit:   Building
Tab Vee 32.  The punishment consisted of a  reduction  in  grade  to  airman
first class.

He was advised of his rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of  the
notification on that same date.  After  consulting  with  counsel  applicant
elected to submit statements on his own behalf.  In a legal  review  of  the
case file, the staff judge advocate found the case  legally  sufficient  and
recommended that he be separated with a general discharge without  probation
and rehabilitation.  On 13 June  1989,  the  discharge  authority  concurred
with the recommendations and directed that he be discharged with  a  general
discharge.

A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened on 25 July 1989 and  referred  his
case to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB)  with  a  diagnosis  of
ulcerative colitis affecting the descending colon.  On 29 August  1989,  the
IPEB found him unfit for further military service based on  a  diagnosis  of
ulcerative colitis, controlled with medications.  The IPEB recommended  that
he be discharged with a combined compensable rating of 10%.   The  applicant
agreed with the findings and recommended disposition of the IPEB.

On 26 September 1989, the Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  Personnel  Council
reviewed the case as a dual  action  case  and  directed  the  applicant  be
separated with a general discharge  and  severance  pay  with  a  disability
rating of 10%.

Applicant was discharged on 30 October 1989.  He served 4 years,  10  months
and 20 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________





AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial.   The  Medical  Consultant
states the applicant indicates he had symptoms of ulcerative colitis  during
the period of  his  misconduct  and  claims  that  his  abdominal  pain  was
sufficiently severe to cause him to lose sleep  at  night  and  then  report
late for duty on several occasions.  Although he  was  disciplined  for  his
misconduct, he did not seek care for this problem until over a  month  after
his last  failure  to  report,  as  his  symptoms  were  apparently  not  of
sufficient severity to prompt him to seek care.  The  symptoms  he  reported
to his physicians (rectal bleeding  for  one  year,  without  complaints  of
abdominal pain, weakness, sleepiness or significant night symptoms) did  not
support his claim that the colitis condition influenced his misconduct.

The Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council  was  tasked  to  determine
the reason for the separation, and the characterization of  the  applicant’s
service.  The Council noted the  applicant’s  misconduct  and  characterized
the service with a general discharge under honorable  conditions.   Although
the applicant received disability separation severance pay, one  should  not
infer that this  indicates  that  the  Council  felt  that  the  applicant’s
medical condition in any way influenced or mitigated his misconduct.   While
the reason for separation was due to an unfitting medical condition, it  was
unrelated to the disciplinary actions he received and  the  characterization
of his service was appropriate as written on the DD Form 214.

Normally, the service of members who are discharged  due  to  disability  is
characterized as honorable.  However, provisions of policy  as  outlined  in
AFR 35-4, chapter 4, paragraph 4-13 allow for characterizing the service  of
members being disability discharged service  as  general  when  appropriate.
Therefore,  his  characterization  was  in  accordance   with   policy   and
procedure.  The preponderance of evidence  of  the  record  shows  that  the
applicant’s ulcerative colitis condition was unfitting for military  service
but did not contribute to his disciplinary actions.  Action and  disposition
in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with  Air  Force
directives that implement the law.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 6 March 2007, the evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  for  review
and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date,  this  office  has
received no response.

_________________________________________________________________


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.   After  reviewing  the  facts  and
circumstances leading to the applicant’s discharge in conjunction  with  his
request to change  his  character  of  service  to  honorable,  we  are  not
persuaded the action taken by the Disability  Evaluation  System  (DES)  was
erroneous or that he did not receive full consideration  by  all  levels  of
review.  The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we agree  with
the opinion and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant 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.  Therefore, in view of the  above  and  absent  evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or an 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-2006-
00654 in Executive Session on 12 April 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                 Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member
                 Mr. Todd L. Schafer, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Feb 06, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 5 Mar 07.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Mar 07.




                 KATHY L. BOOCKHOLDT
                 Panel Chair