RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

      IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00970
            INDEX CODE: 110.00
      XXXXXXX                COUNSEL:  NONE

                                   HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 30 SEPTEMBER 2008

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reason  for  separation  be  changed  from  “Misconduct”  to  “Service-
Connected Disability”.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received an honorable discharge with a separation reason of  misconduct.
Because of the separation reason, he was  denied  the  Montgomery  GI  Bill
(MGIB) benefits he paid for. He  believes  the  reason  for  separation  is
unjust  considering  he  received  service  related  disability  from   the
Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)  for  post  concussion  adjustment
disorder with mixed anxiety/depressed mood and chronic lower  back  strain.
He states he was involved in an automobile accident on  23  Sep  99,  which
resulted in him receiving a service-connected disability.  He believes  the
vast majority of his  problems  labeled  “Misconduct”  occurred  after  his
automobile accident.  He went though physical therapy  and  was  prescribed
several medications for depression.  He  believes  the  medicine  had  side
effects  that  affected  his  job  performance  and  contributed   to   his
“Misconduct” discharge.  He is now an apprentice lineman  in  the  Missouri
Valley Apprenticeship Program, has a three year old son and believes he has
lead a productive life and does not believe he should be penalized  for  an
injury he received while in the military.

In support of his request, he submits a personal letter,  a  copy  his  DVA
decision and a copy of his Apprentice Evaluation Report.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 3 Dec 97. On 28 Aug  00,  he
was notified by his commander that he was  recommending  he  be  discharged
from the Air Force  under  the  provisions  of  AFR  39-10,  Administrative
Separation  of  Airman  for  misconduct  (pattern  of  minor   disciplinary
infractions).  The specific reasons for this action were on 4  May  98,  he
received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and Unfavorable Information File (UIF)
for being arrested, public intoxication and consuming  alcoholic  beverages
while under the age of 21; on 8 Sep 99, he received a Record of  Individual
Counseling (RIC) for failing to  report  for  his  mandatory  End-Of-Course
exam; on 14 Jan 00,  he  received  an  LOR  for  making  a  false  official
statement that he had a chiropractor appointment and failed  to  report  to
his appointed place of duty at the  time  prescribed;  on  31  Jan  00,  he
received an RIC for failing to meet dress and appearance standards; on   12
Feb 00, he received a RIC for failing to complete a required inspection; on
23 Feb 00, he received an LOR for failing  to  meet  dress  and  appearance
standards; on 3 May 00, he received an LOR and (UIF) for failure to obey an
order;  on 22 Jul 00, he received a Article 15 for failing   to  report  to
his appointed place of duty between 20 Jun 00 and 14 Jul 00; on 17 Aug  00,
he received an Article 15 for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.
 On 30 Aug 00, he acknowledged receipt and consulted  counsel  but  elected
not to submit statements on his own behalf.  In a legal review of his  case
the base legal office found it legally sufficient and recommended a general
(under honorable conditions) discharge.  Applicant was  discharged  in  the
grade of airman basic on 14 Sep 00 with service characterized  as  general.
He served a total of 2 years, 9 months and 10 days on active duty.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant  recommends  denial.   The  Medical  Consultant
states a review of the service medical records revealed no suggestion of  a
concussive disorder.  The automobile accident and its sequallae were  well-
documented.  None of the details would lead a medical provider to suspect a
significant head injury either at the time or in retrospect.  The applicant
offered no complaints, even  reports  of  mild  symptoms,  referable  to  a
concussion, such as headaches,  mental  confusion,  dizziness,  sleepiness,
seizures, or  vomiting.   The  pattern  of  misconduct  which  led  to  the
applicant’s discharge began before  his  motor  vehicle  accident  and  re-
occurred past the normal course expected for a mild concussion.   There  is
no objective evidence, during the period of active duty, for  even  a  mild
concussion.  Thus, the preponderance of evidence indicates that it was  the
applicant’s pattern of misconduct that led to his general discharge and not
an unrecognized  service-connected  medical  condition.   Of  note  is  the
applicant complained of excessive daytime somnolence (possibly secondary to
a new antidepressant that he was recently prescribed) to the mental  health
clinic providers two days after he failed to report to his duty station for
five days of the previous six.  He received an Article 15 for this offense.
 Although the specific nature of the offense is unknown by the reviewer, it
is conceivable that his medications could  have  influenced  his  behavior.
However, he had three incidents of failure to report to  his  duty  station
prior to the initiation of antidepressant medication, suggesting  that  the
medications played little or no role in his recurring failures  to  report.
The fact the applicant has been granted service connected  disability  from
the DVA does not entitle him to Air  Force  disability  compensation.   The
Military Disability Evaluation System, established to maintain  a  fit  and
vital fighting force, can by law under Title 10,  only  offer  compensation
for those disease or injuries which specifically rendered  a  member  unfit
for continued active service.  For an individual to be considered unfit for
military  service  there  must  be  a  medical  condition   that   prevents
performance of  any  work  commensurate  with  rank  and  experience.   The
presence of medical conditions that were not unfitting  while  in  service,
and were not the cause of separation or retirement that later  resulted  in
service connected DVA compensation is not a basis  to  retroactively  grant
military disability  or  disability  compensation.   The  preponderance  of
evidence of the record  shows  the  applicant’s  disciplinary  actions  and
subsequent general discharge were caused by the member’s own misconduct and
not  related  to  any  service-connected  medical  condition.   He  neither
reported nor displayed symptoms of a concussion before discharge.  His mild
symptoms of back pain were not unfitting and did not warrant entry into the
Disability Evaluation System.  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 C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He contends medications he was taken for health problems adversely affected
his job performance.  In addition, he was  not  working  in  the  field  he
trained for and the back injuries he received from the accident contributed
to drastic  changes  in  his  services,  "misconduct"  and  ultimately  his
discharge.  He  also  contends  he  was  suffering  from  "sleep  disorder,
anxiety, depression and memory  deficit".   Based  on  his  conditions,  he
believes it is not unusual for problems to occur in the quality of work  or
conduct. (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 waive the failure to timely file.
3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice.  After  careful  consideration  of  the
available evidence, the Board found no indication that the actions taken to
affect his discharge and characterization of  his  service  were  improper,
contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations in  effect  at  the
time. Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, the Board finds
no compelling basis upon which to favorably consider 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  BC-2006-00970  in  Executive
Session on 12 Apr 07, 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 24 Mar 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Medical Consultant Letter, dated 2 Mar 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Mar 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 28 Mar 07.



            KATHY L. BOOCKHOLDT
            Panel Chair

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
                                WASHINGTON DC



[pic]

Office Of The Assistant Secretary

AFBCMR
1535 Command Dr, EE Wing, 3rd Flr
Andrews AFB MD 20762-7002

XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX, MO 63385

AFBCMR
1535 Command Dr, EE Wing, 3rd Flr
Andrews AFB MD 20762-7002

XXXXXXX

      Reference your application, AFBCMR BC-2006-00970, submitted
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603 (Section 1552, 10 USC).

      After careful consideration of your application and military
records, the Board determined that the evidence you presented did
not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice.
Accordingly, the Board denied your application.

      You have the right to submit newly discovered relevant
evidence for consideration by the Board.  In the absence of such
additional evidence, a further review of your application is not
possible.

      BY DIRECTION OF THE PANEL CHAIR





                                                       GREGORY E.
JOHNSON
                                                             Chief
Examiner
                                                 Air Force Board
for Correction
                                                       of Military
Records

Attachment:
Record of Board Proceedings