RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02124
      INDEX CODE:  110.02
      COUNSEL:  NONE

      HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be changed to  a  medical
discharge due to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) with the award  of  a
50 percent disability rating.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have received a medical discharge  due  to  PTSD  because  he  was
unable to adapt to military service.

In support of his application, the applicant submits a DD  Form  214,  Armed
Forces of the United States Report of Transfer  or  Discharge,  copies  from
his service medical record and medical information from internet sites.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17 Aug 56.   He  attained
the rank of airman third class (A3C) with an effective date  of  1  Aug  58.
He received an Article 15 on 12 Feb 58 for being drunk in his quarters.   On
22 Jan 59, he was relieved from active duty and issued  an  under  honorable
conditions (general) discharge for unsuitability.  He had served two  years,
five months and six days on active duty.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted  from
the applicant’s military records, are contained in the  letter  prepared  by
the appropriate offices of the Air Force and the BCMR  Medical  Examiner  at
Exhibits C, D and H.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial.  DPSOS states the applicant was  discharged
under  the  provisions  of  AFR  39-16,  Discharge  for  Unsuitability,  for
attrition – discharge for inaptitude or unsuitability.

DPSOS states that based on the documentation  on  file  in  the  applicant’s
master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with  the  procedural
and substantive requirements of the  discharge  regulation.   The  discharge
was within the discretion of the  discharge  authority.   Additionally,  the
applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors  or  injustices
that occurred in the discharge processing.

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPSD recommends denial.  DPSD  states  the  applicant  was  given  a
medical examination prior to his  discharge  which  noted  the  examinee  is
"qualified  for  discharge"  and  there  were  "no  illnesses  or   injuries
pertinent to this examination."  Based on a review of his  health  treatment
records, there was not enough evidence to warrant a medical board under  the
authority for his requested condition.

The complete DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

The BCMR Medical Consultant opines no change in the applicant's  records  is
warranted.   The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  notes  the  applicant's  record
reflects that he presented for  an  evaluation  of  recurring  dizzy  spells
associated with a brief period of passing out.  He was hospitalized  for  an
evaluation of worsening "black out spells," which reportedly lasted up to  2
to 3 minutes in  duration.   His  syncopal  episodes  were  associated  with
changes in body position.   The  applicant  had  remained  without  symptoms
regarding black outs since his discharge from the hospital  on  15  Mar  57.
Heart murmurs identified during the aforementioned  period  were  determined
by medical authorities to be  "functional"  in  nature,  meaning  they  were
benign or physiologic, based at least in part  upon  the  changes  in  their
intensity upon changes in posture.  Although the applicant was  treated  for
tonsillitis  during  his  military  career,  no  causal   relationship   was
established by medical officials between the applicant's  throat  infections
and his cardiac murmurs.

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  states  although  the  applicant  clearly  had
medical issues during  his  military  service,  none  of  these  prompted  a
recommendation for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB)  and,  thus,  none  were
referred  through  the  Military  Disability  Evaluation   System   for   an
assessment of the applicant's fitness  to  serve.   With  reference  to  the
applicant's  "functional"  cardiac  murmurs,  none  of  these  impaired  his
ability to perform his military duties and thus, did  not  warrant  referral
for an MEB.

The BCMR Medical Consultant acknowledges a letter from a  physician  stating
that the applicant should have never been allowed to enter military  service
due to what he has determined to be pre-existing  rheumatic  heart  disease;
however, the fact that the applicant's medical condition could have  existed
prior to service, did not independently  form  the  basis  for  cutting  his
career short nor impair his duty performance.

The BCMR Medical Consultant's complete evaluation is at Exhibit H.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In response to the evaluations forwarded  to  the  applicant  on  9 Nov  07,
copies of documents extracted from his service  medical  record  (SMR)  were
submitted.  In his 7 Mar 08,  response  to  the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant's
evaluation, the applicant submits two personal statements and excerpted  SMR
documents previously submitted.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit J.

________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  Evidence has not  been  presented
that would lead us to believe the  applicant’s  discharge  was  improper  or
contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the  governing  directive.   The  reasons
discharge  proceedings  were  initiated  against  the  applicant  are   well
documented in the record; therefore, we have  no  basis  to  find  that  his
general discharge was erroneous.  Accordingly, the  applicant’s  request  is
denied.

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 1 Apr 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

               Mr. John B. Hennessey, Panel Chair
               Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
               Ms. Judith B. Oliva, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-2007-02124:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Jun 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOS, dated 2 Oct 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSD, dated 9 Oct 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Nov 07.
    Exhibit F.  Applicant's Rebuttal, 3 Dec 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Jan 08.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, BCMR Med Consultant, dated 13 Feb 08.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Feb 08.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, Applicant, 7 Mar 08, w/atchs.




                                   JOHN B. HENNESSEY
                                   Panel Chair