RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03100
            INDEX CODE: 110.02
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:

____________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reason for his 2005 honorable discharge be changed  from
“Unsatisfactory Performance” to “Release from Active Duty”  due  to  a
medical condition.

____________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have been offered probation and rehabilitation (P&R) due  to
the fact that he was given medication for his hip injury  by  the  Air
Force medical staff.  He failed three tests in technical training  due
to these medicines impairing his mental capability to  concentrate  on
the subject matter or to retain the information.

In support of his appeal he  provides  copies  of  his  DD  Form  214,
Certificate of Release or Discharge  from  Active  Duty  and  training
documents that refer  to  his  being  “on  medication”  and  “went  to
hospital on numerous occasions.”

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

____________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 29  Mar  05  for  a
period of four  years  and  began  training  as  a  supply  management
apprentice.  The following information was extracted from his military
records, student training reports,  administrative  training  actions,
and discharge package.

A 23 May 05 Basic Military Training Student Performance Summary  notes
the applicant was recycled into his new flight.  He was written up for
going to bed early and not being a team player.

On 16 Aug 05, he was counseled on his test failure in Block I.  He was
an average student, understood the material, and answered seven out of
10 questions correctly.  He was advised on how to  improve  his  study
habits and to help memorize key points. He was granted  a  retest  and
scored the minimum passing score.  A 16 Aug  05  counseling  checklist
noted that when called upon the applicant occasionally  did  not  know
where the rest of the class was in the text, and that he had mentioned
test anxiety but “refused to go to the hospital for test anxiety.”  He
also declined the offer of referral agencies.

A 28 Aug 05 counseling checklist reported the applicant  lacked  focus
and was concerned more with waivers, etc.  He indicated his reason for
his block failure was test anxiety and the medication he  was  on  for
pain in his hips.  The checklist also indicated the applicant was  not
positive toward the supply career  field  and  did  not  have  a  good
attitude.

On 29 Aug 05, he was counseled on his Block  III  test  failure.   His
workbook was only 95% completed and the  applicant  indicated  he  was
uncomfortable with the material and could  not  answer  any  questions
asked.  He would be on hold “until his medical  issues  are  resolved”
and then would be washed back through Block III from the beginning  to
ensure he understood the material.

A 30 Aug 05 student training report noted  he  failed  two  blocks  of
instructions.  He did not show any initiative and interest towards the
course.  He attributed his failure to test anxiety; he refused medical
attention for test anxiety.

On 20 Sep 05, he was counseled on his third failure.  He indicated  he
did not participate in class and seemed to have problems grasping  the
very basics.  He lacked motivation and could only answer one out of 12
questions.  He stated he could not remember anything at all.   It  was
noted he did not have an interest  in  the  career  field  and  lacked
dedication.  A 20 Sep 05 counseling checklist indicated  he  “went  to
the hospital on numerous occasions.”

A 28 Sep 05 Record of Administrative Training Action recommended he be
disenrolled from the course and  separated  from  the  Air  Force  for
academic deficiency.  The applicant did not have the academic  ability
to be successful in the field, continued to show a lack of initiative,
did not grasp the basics of the supply management  apprentice  course,
and did not show the dedication to overcome his shortcomings.

On 2 Nov 05, the applicant was notified of his commander’s  intent  to
recommend an honorable discharge for unsatisfactory  duty  performance
for failing the Block I test  and  the  Block  III  test  twice.   The
applicant  acknowledged  receipt  and  on  2 Nov  05,  the   commander
recommended the applicant for discharge without  P&R.   The  applicant
waived his right to consult counsel or to submit statements.

The applicant was honorably discharged on 22 Nov 05 after 7 months and
24  days  on  active  duty.   He  was  issued  an  RE  code  of   “2C”
(involuntarily separated with  an  honorable  discharge)  and  an  SPD
code/narrative reason of “JHJ/Unsatisfactory Performance.”

____________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  According to  the  master  personnel
records, the applicant had the academic ability to be  successful  but
continued to show lack of initiative.  The  discharge  was  consistent
with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge
regulation and within the discretion of the discharge authority.

The complete HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

____________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant contends his hip injury occurred in the fourth  week  of
basic training while he was running in a  group  formation.   His  hip
began popping and hurting on the right side and then on the left.   He
was placed on Motrin and excused from marching  and  exercises.  After
graduating and arriving at Shepherd  AFB,  he  was  still  on  medical
waivers and two painkillers and sometimes went to  the  hospital.   He
was tired and could not concentrate.  When he went to Lackland he went
to the hospital on a couple of occasions.  He was on three painkillers
and medical waivers and the pain was worse.  He did not find  out  the
results of an “MRI bone scan” and at one point he was on crutches.  He
failed his second tech school because of his medical problem  but  was
discharged for the wrong reason.  He should have  received  a  medical
discharge.  Due to the painkillers, he also does not remember  waiving
his rights to consult with legal counsel and submit statements in  his
behalf.

A complete copy of applicant’s response is at Exhibit E.

____________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The Medical Consultant
states the evidence in the record indicates  the  applicant  had  been
taking several non-steroidal anti-inflammatory  medications.   Reports
from his commanders and medical  providers  do  not  indicate  he  was
suffering any side effects from the  medication  he  was  taken,   The
applicant reports a history of  attention  deficit  disorder  and  was
prescribed Ritalin in his childhood.  According to AFI 48-123, Medical
Examination and Standards,  A2.13.6, "Members with this  condition  do
not  merit  a  medical  board   disposition   and   may   be   managed
administratively.   If  treatment  with  medication  is  required  for
adequate  duty  performance,  referral  to  the  unit  commander   for
determination  of  administrative  disposition  is  appropriate.   The
commander  may  seek  administrative  separation  based  on   impaired
performance or allow for continued duty  if  the  value  to  the  unit
outweighs risks of requiring  medication."   Thus  the  administrative
separation for impaired performance would be  an  appropriate  action,
assuming  that  the  applicant's  failures  were  a  result  of   this
condition.  The predominant causes of his  unsatisfactory  performance
are the apparent lack of motivation as described by his instructors in
addition to his history of learning disabilities.   The  preponderance
of evidence of record shows that  the  applicant's  medical  condition
(hip pain) was not of sufficient severity to cause  academic  failures
in two different career fields.  Actions and disposition in this  case
are  proper  and  equitable  reflecting  compliance  with  Air   Force
directives that implement the law.

The complete Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit F.

____________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
20 June 2007 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this  date,
this office has received no response (Exhibit G).

____________________________________________________________

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 injustice.  After  careful  consideration
of the available evidence, we found no indication that  the  narrative
reason for his discharge was improper or contrary to the provisions of
the governing regulations in effect at the time.  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.

____________________________________________________________


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-
2006-03100 in Executive Session on 26 July 2007, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
            Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member
            Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Sep 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 17 Oct 06.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Nov 06.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, not dated.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 13 Jun 07.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 June 2007.




                                   B. J. WHITE-OLSON
                                   Panel Chair