RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04355
		COUNSEL: 
		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be changed to a permanent retirement with a 100 percent disability rating.  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While in confinement his commander visited him and stated that he would allow the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) process to continue instead of pursuing an administrative discharge.  When he returned to work he was informed that he needed to work hard until his MEB was completed.  

His reason for discharge was changed from a permanent retirement to an administrative discharge because his commander was given false and misleading information regarding the status of his MEB.  

In support of his request the applicant provides a personal statement discussing the events which led up to his discharge, DD Form 214WS, Worksheet; witness statements and various other documents associated with his request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 4 Mar 08, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. 

On 28 Jun 11, the applicant was tried by a General Court-Martial for willfully attempting to sell and steal military property of the United States of an aggregate value of more than $500.00.  He pled guilty and was sentenced to a reduction to the grade of airman, forfeiture of $1,644.90 pay per month for three months, and confinement for 75 days.  On 23 Sep 11, the sentence was approved as adjudged, with the exception of the forfeiture amount.  The convening authority approved only $1,144.00 per month for three months. 

On 3 Jan 12, the applicant was notified of his commanders intent to recommend he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen.  The specific reason for the action was Commission of a Serious Offense – Other Serious Offenses.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and after consulting with counsel, submitted a statement on his own behalf.  For a full accounting of the offenses and punishments, please see Exhibit B.

On 6 Jan 12, the applicant filed a complaint with the 7th Bomb Wing Inspector General (7 BW/IG) alleging he was informed by several healthcare providers at Dyess AFB, TX, he needed a MEB beginning in 2009; however, he was never processed for one.  An analysis of case revealed it was a medical issue and was referred to the 7th Medical Group commander for action. 

On 10 Jan 12, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) reviewed the case file and found it legally sufficient to support a discharge and recommended that he receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.  The SJA stated that the applicant was undergoing a MEB to determine medical fitness for continued worldwide duty and retention and noted this fact was not addressed in the commander’s recommendation memorandum.

On 11 Jan 12, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of AFI 36-3208.   

On 31 Jan 12, the execution of the approved discharge was deferred pending the outcome of the applicant’s MEB and referred to the AFPC (Separations Branch) for further consideration of the applicant’s medical qualification under the provisions of AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement and Separation to separate as approved (Dual Action).

On 23 Mar 12, the applicant’s records met a MEB for recurrent headaches.  The MEB recommended the applicant’s records meet an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB).  He agreed with the findings and recommendation of the MEB.  

On 6 Jun 12, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) issued a Disability Evaluation System (DES) Proposed Rating of 50 percent for the applicants unfitting condition (recurrent headaches).  On 22 Jun 12, the IPEB reviewed the case and found the applicant unfit and recommended permanent retirement with a 50 percent disability rating in accordance with Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) guidelines.  The IPEB noted “your medical condition prevents you from reasonably performing the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating.”

On 23 Aug 12, the SAFPC directed the applicant be discharged IAW of AFI 36-3208.  The board reviewed the applicant’s discharge action IAW AFI 36-3208 as well as his DES case IAW AFI 36-3212, for complex migraine headaches.  The board determined there was no causal relationship between the applicant’s medical condition and his misconduct, and that there were insufficient mitigating factors to disregard the disciplinary action.  Therefore, the Board determined that execution of the previously approved AFI 36-3208 action was appropriate.  

On 30 Aug 12, the applicant was discharged for misconduct with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions) in the grade of airman.  He served 4 years, 3 months and 25 days of total active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  DPSOR states that the applicant’s separation (for misconduct) was the appropriate narrative reason for separation.  The documentation on file in the master personnel record supports the basis for discharge.  The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  Further, the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. 

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPFD recommends denial.  DPFD states that there is nothing in the applicant’s record to support the claim that his commander was going to stop the administrative discharge action process.  It should be noted that when SAFPC reviewed the case as a dual action in regards to being the final separation authority they had the option to retain the applicant on active duty, direct the medical retirement or uphold the administrative discharge.  

DPFD states that the preponderance of the evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the disability process or the rating applied at the time of the board.

The complete DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________









APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 10 Dec 12, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E).  As of this date, this office has not received a response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 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.  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:

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-2012-04355 in Executive Session on 20 Jun 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Chair
      Member
      Member





The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-04355 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Aug 12, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 6 Nov 12.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 21 Nov 12.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 10 Dec 12.




							
							Chair