RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01197 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. His discharge was due to a brain tumor he had while on active 
duty. His records stated his discharge was due to his short-term 
memory being affected by a tumor. 

 

2. Since his discharge, he has been granted 60% service connected 
disability with unemployability by the Department of Veterans 
Affairs (DVA). 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, and letters from the DVA. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 8 January 1979, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air 
Force and was promoted up to the grade of airman first class. On 
9 September 1980, he was demoted to the grade of airman, with a 
date of rank and effective date of 8 July 1980. 

 

On 8 February 1981, his commander notified him that he was 
initiating discharge action against him for unsuitability. The 
reasons for the commander’s action were the applicant’s defective 
attitude, his inability to expend effort constructively as 
evidenced by the applicant’s failure to carry out duties 
commensurate with his grade and experience, his downward trend in 
duty performance, failure to maintain military standards, and his 
continued failure to perform his duties in the prescribed manner 
as indicated by a number of adverse incidents. The 
commander recommended the applicant receive a general (under 


honorable conditions) discharge. The applicant was also advised 
that an evaluation officer would be appointed to review the 
discharge file. The applicant submitted a rebuttal statement in 
his own behalf. 

 

The evaluation officer recommended the applicant be discharged 
and furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge 
certificate as recommended by the commander. The evaluation 
officer also recommended the applicant not be considered for 
rehabilitation under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for 
Unsuitability, Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for Discharge 
for the Good of the Service and Procedures for the Rehabilitation 
Program. The Assistant Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the entire 
case file, found no irregularities and determined the case was 
legally sufficient for the applicant to be discharged. 

 

On 24 February 1981, the discharge authority directed the 
applicant be discharged and furnished a general (under honorable 
conditions) discharge certificate. The discharge authority 
considered probation and rehabilitation for the applicant but 
decided it was not appropriate. 

 

The applicant was discharged on 27 February 1981 and was credited 
with 2 years, 1 month, and 20 days of service. 

 

According to documents furnished by the applicant, the DVA 
awarded him service connected disability compensation at the 100 
percent rate effective on or before 1 July 2005. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of the applicant’s request. The 
applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any injustices 
that occurred in the discharge processing. Based on documents on 
file in the master personnel records, the applicant’s discharge, 
to include the narrative reason for separation and separation 
code, was consistent with the procedural and substantive 
requirements of the discharge authority. 

 

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical 
Consultant states he found no evidence of a disqualifying medical 
condition during the applicant’s military service that warranted 
processing him through the Disability Evaluation System. The 
Medical Consultant opines that had there been a progressive 
organic cause of the applicant’s pattern of behavior during his 
military service, e.g., a slow growing brain tumor, his 
maladaptive behavior would likely have continued unabated and 
without the significant intervening period of behavioral 
improvement and a reasonably successful employment history. 


Although the DVA established a nexus between the applicant’s 
brain tumor and his period of service, the Medical Consultant 
finds this insufficient for a determination that his pattern of 
misconduct during military service was the direct result of the 
tumor discovered in 1991. Thus, the mere fact that an applicant 
has been retroactively assigned service connection and 
subsequently awarded disability compensation for a medical 
condition does not substantiate that such a condition was a 
diagnosable illness during military service or that it should 
have been the cause for career termination. The Medical 
Consultant further opines that had the applicant’s fainting 
episodes been proven to be attributed to a temporal lobe tumor so 
soon after entering military service, acknowledging its 
recognized slow growing pattern, it is likely the medical 
condition would have been determined to have existed prior to 
military service. 

 

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 

 

Copies of the DPSOS and BCMR Medical Consultant evaluations were 
forwarded to the applicant on 17 December 2010 for review and 
comment within 30 days. To date a response has not been received 
(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 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 opinions and recommendations 
of the BCMR Medical Consultant and the Air Force office of 
primary responsiblitiy and adopt their rationale as the basis for 
our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-01197 in Executive Session on 25 January 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

Panel Chair 

Member 

Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Mar 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 5 Nov 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 14 Nov 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Dec 10. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair