RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02526
                                             INDEX CODE:  110.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                 COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  17 February 2008


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her discharge should have been honorable  because  it  should  have  been  a
medical discharge.  Her current discharge status was caused by  her  medical
conditions.

She wishes to use the Montgomery GI Bill and is otherwise fully eligible  to
do so.

In support of her appeal, she has provided a copy of her DD Form 214,  dated
17 October 2001.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 25 October 2000 for a  period
of six years, and served as a munitions system apprentice.

On 18 September 2001, applicant was notified of her  commander's  intent  to
recommend her for an under  honorable  conditions  (general)  discharge  for
minor disciplinary infractions.

The commander stated the  following  reasons  for  the  proposed  discharge:


        a. On 10 May 2001, she failed to obey an order from  her  supervisor
           to assist other airmen in the shop on vegetation control  detail,
           for which she received a Record of Individual Counseling (RIC)

        b. On 22 May 2001, she was released from work and ordered to  attend
           a Change of Command Ceremony.  She failed to obey  the  order  by
           leaving before the completion of the  ceremony,  and  received  a
           Letter of Reprimand (LOR) dated 24 May 2001

        c. On or about 4 June 2001, she was derelict in the  performance  of
           her duties in that she negligently failed to stay awake while  on
           duty.  On 19 June 2001, she  received  an  Article  15,  and  her
           punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of Airman (E-2),
           restriction to the base for 15 days, 30 days extra  duty,  and  a
           reprimand

        d. On or about 24 June 2001, she was derelict in the performance  of
           her duties in that she negligently failed  to  stay  awake  while
           performing extra duties.   On  17  July  2001,  she  received  an
           Article 15, and her punishment was a reduction to  the  grade  of
           Airman Basic (E-1), 45 days restriction, and a reprimand

The commander advised applicant of  her  right  to  consult  legal  counsel,
submit statements in her  own  behalf,  or  waive  the  above  rights  after
consulting with counsel.

On 21 September 2001, after consulting  with  counsel,  applicant  submitted
statements in her own behalf.

A legal review was conducted on 5 October 2001, in  which  the  staff  judge
advocate  recommended  applicant  be  discharged  for   minor   disciplinary
infractions, with a general discharge characterization.

Since applicant had less than 20 months of total  active  military  service,
she did not receive an Enlisted Performance  Report.   Her  records  reflect
she is entitled to wear the Air Force Training Ribbon.

Applicant was discharged on 17 October 2001 in the grade of Airman Basic (E-
1), with an under honorable conditions discharge, in  accordance  with  AFPD
36-32, and AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5-49, for Minor Disciplinary  Infractions.
 She served a total of 11 months and 23 days net active service.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no  change  in  records
is warranted, and advises applicant may  wish  to  consider  exercising  her
right to appeal to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB).

Review of her service medical records shows care for minor acute  illnesses,
a painful bunion which existed prior to service (EPTS), and  EPTS  Attention
Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder  (ADHD),  for  which  she  was  treated  with
Ritalin during the fifth grade.  At  the  time  of  her  enlistment  medical
examination and enlistment medical prescreening, she made no mention of  her
history of ADHD or treatment with Ritalin.  Although the screening forms  do
not specifically  inquire  about  ADHD,  there  are  questions  that  prompt
applicants to report any condition for which they  received  evaluation  and
treatment.

After receiving the RIC on 10 May 2001, she was referred by  her  supervisor
to the family practice clinic on 14 May 2001 for being drowsy at  work  with
decreased attention.  The clinic record entry recorded that she  stated  she
was drowsy at work, and “I can concentrate but I’m a  little  absent  minded
at times.”  Her sleep hygiene history indicated  she  went  to  bed  between
11 P.M. and midnight, and arose at  6:15  A.M.  without  difficulty  falling
asleep or early awakening.  She reported a prior  history  of  ADHD  treated
with Ritalin.  A mental health clinic record entry was  dated  15  May  2001
for evaluation on self referral for poor concentration and decision  making,
and also noted a reported history of ADHD treated with Ritalin in the  fifth
grade.  There was no psychiatric diagnosis  other  than  possible  Attention
Deficit Disorder (ADD).

After falling asleep at work, she presented to  sick  call  for  evaluation,
complaining of sore throat, congestion, dizziness with standing,  five  nose
bleeds in the past day and a half, and stomach ache.   Physical  examination
was normal, there was scant or no nasal discharge, no evidence of  blood  in
the nose, tympanic membranes were recorded as normal, and  lung  examination
and general  examination  was  normal.   She  reported  she  had  taken  the
antihistamine Benadryl which the physician noted could cause drowsiness.

On 16 July 2001, she completed a health  screening  questionnaire,  reported
feeling down, and was referred to a chaplain.   On  17 July  2001,  she  was
seen in the family practice  clinic  and  reported  experiencing  fragmented
sleep, awakening three to four time per night.  The  physician  noted  “mood
changes related to Article 15”, and ordered  additional  laboratory  studies
for evaluation of fatigue.  The physician recorded “Pt. told  she  needs  to
accept responsibility for her poor sleep and  find  lifestyle  changes  that
will improve it.”  At the time of the follow-up appointment  in  the  family
practice clinic on 25 July 2001, the laboratory studies  were  noted  to  be
normal  (including  thyroid  function),  and  she  reported  sleeping  well,
sleeping six to seven hours per night, and  feeling  rested  upon  awakening
with good energy level.  She reported that her mood was  down  recently  but
it was “OK” before the Article 15.  During a follow-up  appointment  in  the
family practice clinic on 9  August  2001  for  sleeping  on  the  job,  the
physician recorded “Pt. states job  was  so  slow  it  caused  her  to  fall
asleep.”  Her job setting had recently changed but she was  experiencing  no
change in her energy level and the physician wrote that she  “cannot  relate
one particular job she would like to keep  her  interested/happy/energetic.”
The physician  noted  she  had  seen  the  chaplain  for  some  issues,  and
concluded there was no medical explanation for her fatigue or drowsiness  at
work.

The applicant followed up with the mental health  clinic  on  9 August  2001
for “possible” ADHD.  By  the  time  of  her  19 September  2001  separation
medical examination, she was being treated  with  Ritalin  for  ADHD.   A  3
October 2001 mental health clinic record  entry  indicated  a  diagnosis  of
Attention   Deficit   Hyperactivity   Disorder   (combined),   with   better
concentration, task completion, and memory on Ritalin.

Service medical record entries also show a bunion of the right foot  present
for years prior  to  entry  into  military  service,  and  reported  by  the
applicant as being painful for two years.   A  podiatry  examination  on  24
September 2001 noted a hyper-mobile joint, an EPTS developmental condition.

In her written response to involuntary separation, she states she took  full
responsibility for her actions and that in  retrospect  she  felt  she  made
stupid decisions and was now suffering the  consequences.   In  her  written
response, she made no mention of medical issues.  Her  request  for  upgrade
of medical discharge has not been considered by the AFDRB.

Following  separation,  she  applied  for   service   connected   disability
compensation through the Department of Veterans Affairs and  was  granted  a
service connected rating for hallux valgus deformity, right foot claimed  as
bunions and several structural bunions right foot  rated  at  10%.   Service
connection for ADHD was not granted.

Applicant was disciplined for four minor infractions,  but  review  of  both
her personnel and medical records reflects a  continuous  problem  with  her
duty performance related to both  personal  and  medical  issues,  including
sleep hygiene, attitude, motivation/interest,  and  ADHD  diagnosed  by  Air
Force mental health professionals.  During evaluation,  she  reported  being
diagnosed with ADHD in the fifth grade and treated with Ritalin as  a  child
(indirect evidence suggests there were difficulties  with  this  during  the
high school years).  In addition, there  were  mild  symptoms  of  decreased
mood in the setting of stressors that  did  not  rise  to  the  level  of  a
diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder; however, it is  noted  that  she  reported
her ADD symptoms worsened while on active duty, suggestive  of  poor  coping
skills consistent with an adjustment problem.  Those  symptoms  appeared  to
improve with treatment with Ritalin; however, the  improvement  was  in  the
setting of relief of the  occupational  stressors  and  pending  separation.
She did not report her history of ADHD or  treatment  with  Ritalin  at  the
time of her enlistment  medical  pre-screening  or  enlistment  examination,
even though screening questions clearly request reporting of all  conditions
and treatments.  Had this information been  properly  revealed,  appropriate
evaluation could have been performed to assess whether a  waiver  for  entry
was appropriate.  Her  other  medical  conditions  were  not  unfitting  for
continued military service and did not  warrant  consideration  in  the  Air
Force  Disability  Evaluation   System   (DES)    ADHD   is   an   unsuiting
developmental condition and  is  not  a  disability  that  is  eligible  for
consideration in the DES.

While evidence of record indicates she may have been unsuited  for  military
service due to ADHD and coping skills, disobeying an order and  unauthorized
departure cannot be explained by ADHD, and ADHD is not  directly  associated
with excessive daytime sleepiness.  Mental health evaluators were  aware  of
her disciplinary infractions, her coping  style,  and  emotional  responses,
but did not initiate a recommendation for  discharge  under  provisions  for
unsuitability.  Medical  evaluation  concluded  with  no  medical  condition
causing her conduct or excessive daytime sleepiness.

ADHD is considered an unsuiting  condition  that  may  be  a  reason  for  a
commander to administratively discharge a service  member.   Airmen  may  be
administratively discharged by their commander based upon  the  presence  of
certain  unsuiting  physical  or  mental  conditions  that  interfere   with
assignment or duty performance, that otherwise  do  not  warrant  disability
processing.   Unsuiting  conditions  subject  to  administrative   discharge
include,  but  are  not  limited  to,  adjustment   disorders,   personality
disorders, impulse control disorders, fear  of  flying  and  other  phobias,
dyslexia, other learning  disorders,  and  Attention  Deficit  Hyperactivity
Disorder.  In accordance with discharge regulations,  the  existence  of  an
unsuiting condition  that  may  be  a  basis  for  discharge  does  not  bar
separation for any other reasons, and further does not take precedence  over
discharge  for  another  reason,  such  as  misconduct   or   unsatisfactory
performance.  In addition to her minor misconduct, her  commander  may  have
considered  fraudulent  enlistment  as   a   basis   for   discharge.    The
preponderance  of  evidence  of  the  record  indicates  that   action   and
disposition in this case are proper  and  equitable,  reflecting  compliance
with Air Force directives that implement the law.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on  7  June
2007, for review and comment, within 30 days.
However, as of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_______________________________________________________________

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.   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  AFBCMR  Medical  Consultant  and
adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the  applicant  has
not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Applicant’s records  indicate
she was disciplined for four minor  infractions,  but  review  of  both  her
personnel and medical records reflects a continuous problem  with  her  duty
performance related to both personal and  medical  issues,  including  sleep
hygiene, attitude, motivation/interest, and  ADHD  diagnosed  by  Air  Force
mental health professionals.  Evidence has been presented that she  did  not
report her history of ADHD or treatment with Ritalin  at  the  time  of  her
enlistment medical pre-screening  or  enlistment  examination,  even  though
screening  questions  clearly  request  reporting  of  all  conditions   and
treatments, and had this information  been  properly  revealed,  appropriate
evaluation could have been performed to assess whether a  waiver  for  entry
was appropriate.  While evidence of  record  indicates  she  may  have  been
unsuited for military service due to ADHD and coping skills,  disobeying  an
order and unauthorized departure cannot be explained by ADHD,  and  ADHD  is
not directly associated with excessive daytime  sleepiness.   Mental  health
evaluators were aware of her disciplinary  infractions,  her  coping  style,
and  emotional  responses,  but  did  not  initiate  a  recommendation   for
discharge  under  provisions  for  unsuitability,  and  medical   evaluation
concluded with  no  medical  condition  causing  her  conduct  or  excessive
daytime sleepiness. Discharge regulations stipulate that  the  existence  of
an unsuiting condition that may be  a  basis  for  discharge  does  not  bar
separation for any other reasons, and further does not take precedence  over
discharge  for  another  reason,  such  as  misconduct   or   unsatisfactory
performance.  Her other medical conditions were not unfitting for  continued
military service  and  did  not  warrant  consideration  in  the  Air  Force
Disability Evaluation System (DES)  Therefore, in the  absence  of  evidence
to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the
relief sought in this application.

________________________________________________________________

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  Docket  Number  BC-2006-02526
in Executive Session on 24 July 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Vice Chair
                       Mr. Jeffery R. Shelton, Member
                       Ms. Dee R. Reardon, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Aug 06, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFCBMR Medical Consultant, dated
                17 May 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 7 Jun 07.




                                   PATRICIA J. ZARODKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair