RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00197

		COUNSEL:  NO

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her official records be corrected to show she was medically retired from active duty rather than discharged due to misconduct. 

2.  Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was administratively discharged unjustly even though the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) process assigned her a 30 percent disability rating and recommended her for a medical discharge.  Instead, she should have been honorably discharged with a medical discharge.  The MEB was completed in Oct 11, but she was not discharged until Mar 12.  In addition, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) gave her a combined disability rating of 50 percent.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 3 Feb 09.  

On 8 Aug 11, the applicant’s commander notified her he was recommending her for discharge from the Air Force for minor disciplinary infractions.  The reasons for this action were:

	a.  Between 29 Jan 10 and 21 Jan 11, the applicant received five letters of reprimand (LORs) for failing to report to an appointment with her supervisor, failing to start and complete a project assigned to her, failing her fitness assessment (FA) for the second time, failing to videotape a retirement ceremony she was required to, and failing to report to her appointed place of duty twice.   

	b.  Between 18 Feb 11 and 2 Mar 11, the applicant received two letters of counseling (LOCs) for plugging an unauthorized camera into a government computer connected to the network after being ordered twice not do to just that, and for failing to go to a scheduled dental appointment. 

	c.  On 20 Apr 11, the applicant received an LOR for failing to report at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty; an unfavorable information file (UIF) was started on her, and she was placed on a Control Roster.

	d.  On 26 July 11, the applicant’s commander issued her non-judicial punishment (Article 15) under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for, on diverse occasions, failing to report at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty, and for failing to go to a mandatory FA appointment.  For this, she was reprimanded, reduced in rank to Airman, and given 14 extra days of duty.  

On 12 Aug 11, the applicant’s commander recommended her for discharge with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions.  The discharge package was reviewed and determined to be legally sufficient.  

On 18 Aug 11, the discharge authority directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). 

On 20 Oct 11, the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) determined her recurrent major depression was in the line-of-duty (LOD), and recommended her case be forwarded to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB).  

On 21 Oct 11, the applicant received a referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) covering the period of 3 Oct 10 through 2 Oct 11, on which she was marked “Does not Meet” in Block 1 (Primary/Additional Duties), Block 2 (Standards, Conduct, Character, and Military Bearing), and Block 5 (Teamwork/Followership).  The applicant’s overall performance assessment was a “1.”  

On 14 Nov 11, the applicant received a second Article 15 for being absent from her place of duty without authority on four different days.  For punishment, she received a reprimand in which the commander stated “Airmen have been court-martialed for similar misconduct,” and reduction to the grade of Airman Basic (E-1). 

On 30 Dec 11, according to documentation provided by the applicant, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) issued the applicant a combined disability rating of 50 percent for major depressive disorder (30 percent), mild right and left patella-femoral pain syndrome (10 percent each), and episodic tension headaches (10 percent).

On 10 Jan 12, the IPEB found the applicant unfit for duty due to recurrent major depression, and recommended temporary retirement with a disability rating of 30 percent. 

On 15 Feb 12, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) reviewed the case based upon the concurrent nature of the administrative discharge and the IPEB recommendation for medical retirement and recommended the applicant be administratively discharged.  The Board determined there was no causal relationship between the member’s medical condition and the bulk of her misconduct, and there were insufficient mitigating factors to disregard the applicant’s disciplinary actions.  

On 5 Mar 12, the applicant was administratively discharged with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions), and credited with 3 years, 1 month, and 3 days of active service.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C.    

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice.  The applicant was concurrently the subject of a MEB and an involuntary administrative discharge for minor disciplinary infractions.  On 20 Oct 11, her MEB resulted in a referral to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB), where she was found unfit for further military service and a recommendation was made for placement on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) with a 30 percent disability rating.  The applicant declined an impartial review of her MEB.  The SAFPC reviewed the case as a “dual-action” review for the purpose of determining the appropriate reason for discharge and character or service, noting the applicant was concurrently the subject of both an approved administrative discharge and an approved TDRL action.  The majority of the SAFPC issued the recommendation to execute the previously approved administrative discharge action, citing insufficient mitigating factors to disregard the disciplinary action.  The record suggests the applicant had a predisposition for depression prior to entering the military service that was likely permanently aggravated by military service.  The Medical Consultant finds the three issues of lateness, sleep impairment, and depression may be interrelated, but found no mitigating nexus with other infractions such as missing a dental appointment, failing fitness assessments, plugging unauthorized software into a government computer, making false statements to a senior NCO, failing to complete continuity binders, and failing to attend physical training.  The applicant has not met the burden of proof of error or injustice required to justify the desired change the record.   

A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9 Oct 13 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 an error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  While the Board acknowledges the concurrent nature of the medical evaluation and administrative discharge processes, we concur with AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s position that the preponderance of the applicant’s disciplinary problems were not the result of her medical condition, and believe there are insufficient mitigating factors to disregard the disciplinary action.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief.

________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-00197 in Executive Session on 12 Nov 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-00197 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Dec 12, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 18 Apr 13.
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Oct 13.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair