DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01438
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His administrative separation be changed to a medical discharge.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was diagnosed with a “Bipolar disorder,” in Oct 08, and
believes he should have been medically discharged. He was seen
by mental health providers on two occasions and was told that he
would be recommended for separation. Following his discharge,
the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rated him at
30 percent.
He was never given an option to be evaluated by a Medical
Evaluation Board/Physical Evaluation Board (MEB/PEB) with
processing through the Disability Evaluation System (DES).
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 10 Feb 09, the applicant was honorably discharged, with a
reason for separation of “conditions not disability.” He was
credited with 1 year, 10 months and 14 days of active duty
service.
________________________________________________________________
THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, stating, in part, that based on
the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the
discharge, to include his character of service, was consistent
with the procedural and substantive requirements of the
discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the
discharge authority. The applicant did not provide any evidence
of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge
processing that warrants a change to his narrative reason for
separation.
They did not find sufficient evidence contained within the
applicant's military record to confirm the circumstances and
facts surrounding his discharge. Absent evidence to the
contrary, there is a presumption of regularity in which the
applicant was afforded due process and the discharge was
consistent with procedural and substantive requirements of the
discharge regulation. The applicant's service characterization
is correct as reflected on his DD Form 214.
The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 9 Oct 12 for review and comment within 30 days. As
of this date, no response has been received by this office
(Exhibit D).
________________________________________________________________
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 error or injustice. We took notice
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of
the case; however, we agree with the Air Force office of primary
responsibility that based on the governing directives in effect
at the time of the applicant’s separation, it appears that Air
Force officials acted within established regulatory parameters
in administratively releasing the applicant from military
service. In addition, we note the Military Disability
Evaluation System (MDES) only offers compensation for the
medical condition that is the cause for career termination and
then only to the degree of impairment present at the time of
final disposition or military separation. Conversely, the
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) operates under a separate
set of laws which take into account the fact that a person can
acquire physical conditions during military service that,
although not unfitting at the time of separation, may later
progress in severity and alter the individual's lifestyle and
future employability. While we note the applicant asserts that
he was not provided appropriate medical evaluation at the time
of separation, based on the available documentation, we do not
find the evidence sufficient to establish that he was the victim
of an error or injustice. Consequently, in view of the above
and 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:
2
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 AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2012-01438 in Executive Session on 29 November 2012,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Jun 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Available Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 26 Sep 12.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Oct 12.
Panel Chair
3
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03870
________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AETC/SGPS recommends denial of the applicants request to change his reentry (RE) code. The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicants request to change his character of service and narrative reason for separation. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC- 2012-03870...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 03870
________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AETC/SGPS recommends denial of the applicants request to change his reentry (RE) code. The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicants request to change his character of service and narrative reason for separation. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC- 2012-03870...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05274
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility which are included at Exhibits C and F. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. Had the Air Force known of this condition at the time of his enlistment, the applicant would not have been allowed entry into...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02886
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02886 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His entry level separation be changed to a medical discharge. Had the Air Force known of this condition at the time of his enlistment, he would not have been allowed entry into the military. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04614
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04614 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason for separation on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed from unsatisfactory performance to medical...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01691
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01691 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His disability discharge, with severance pay (DWSP), be changed to a retirement. He had completed over 12 years of service at the time of his discharge. In addressing the applicants request for a length of service retirement, in lieu of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05571
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, which are attached at Exhibits C and E. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicants request to change the reason for his separation. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 02567
Since that time, she was seen at the clinic for alcohol abuse and a suicide attempt on 4 Oct 2002. However, the mental health professional who evaluated her determined that her primary diagnosis was Borderline Personality Disorder and that she had an S4T profile, secondary to her alcohol abuse and involvement in the ADAPT program. She suffers from depression, suicidal ideations, anger issues, and has a personality disorder, which began during her time in the military and has continued...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02567
Since that time, she was seen at the clinic for alcohol abuse and a suicide attempt on 4 Oct 2002. However, the mental health professional who evaluated her determined that her primary diagnosis was Borderline Personality Disorder and that she had an S4T profile, secondary to her alcohol abuse and involvement in the ADAPT program. She suffers from depression, suicidal ideations, anger issues, and has a personality disorder, which began during her time in the military and has continued...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-05065
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, which are attached at Exhibits C and F. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice with respect to the applicants discharge. While the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) saw fit to award the applicant...