RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00280

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect he was medically discharged. 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was wrongfully discharged for drug rehabilitation failure.  
He should have been medically discharged.  The Department of 
Veterans Affairs (DVA) decision letter indicates the Air Force 
was aware of his medical condition in Dec 79.  His mitral valve 
prolapse was diagnosed in Apr 80.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 5 Nov 79, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the 
Regular Air Force.

On 19 Aug 83, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was 
recommending his discharge from the Air Force for failure in the 
Drug Abuse Rehabilitation Program.  The specific reason for the 
discharge action was he tested positive Tetrahydrocannabinol 
(THC) during a urinalysis test while in the rehabilitation 
program.  The commander cited the following derogatory 
information: three Letters of Reprimand (LORs) for failing to 
stop on his shuttle bus route, being late for duty, two positive 
urinalysis for marijuana; six records of Individual Counseling 
for reporting late for duty, speeding on the flight line, 
leaving his bus in an unserviceable condition, and an overdue 
Deferred Payment Plan (DPP) account notice. 

After consulting with legal counsel, the applicant acknowledged 
receipt of the action and elected to submit a statement in his 
own behalf.

The case was found legally sufficient and, on 23 Nov 83, the 
applicant was furnished a general discharge and was credited 
with 4 years and 18 days of active service.

On 18 Oct 85, the applicant was notified by the Chief, 
Separations Division, that the urinalysis specimen he provided 
during the period of Apr 82 to Oct 83, which tested positive for 
THC, did not meet the new forensic criteria for confirmation and 
have been set aside.  He was further advised that based on the 
other grounds listed in his discharge action that his discharge 
and service characterization would still stand. 

On 30 Mar 87, the Discharge Review Board (DRB) considered and 
denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge 
and narrative reason for separation and forwarded his request to 
the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) for 
consideration regarding upgrading his RE code.  SAFPC considered 
and denied the applicant’s RE code request noting the reasons 
for the general discharge and RE code were well documented in 
his military records and that he did not provide sufficient 
post-service documentation that would serve to overcome the 
factors leading to his discharge.

On 29 Jun 87, the AFBCMR considered and denied the applicant’s 
request for an upgrade to his discharge and change in RE code. 

On 26 Jan 12, according to documentation provided by the 
applicant, the DVA awarded him service connection for his 
coronary artery disease with a 100 percent disability rating, 
effective 25 Aug 11.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there 
is no evidence of an error or injustice.  The applicant’s 
records indicate he entered military service with a history of a 
heart murmur since childhood.  During his military service, the 
applicant was seen and treated for a variety of medical 
conditions to include heart murmur and chest pains.  He was 
subsequently diagnosed with mild mitral valve prolapse and 
endocarditis.  However, there is no documentation in the 
applicant’s records showing his heart condition prevented him 
from performing his assigned duties, or that he had any other 
cardiovascular or pulmonary ailment that warranted consideration 
by an Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) or rendered him non-
worldwide qualified.  The applicant received a medical profile 
for an ankle injury he incurred in Jan 81.  Mental Health 
Service issued a profile identifying the applicant as an THC 
experimenter.  

The fact that the DVA has established a nexus between the 
applicant's coronary artery disease and his EPTS heart murmur is 
within its authority, but does not retroactively establish 
unfitness at the time of military service.  The DVA operates 
under a different set of laws and is authorized to offer 
compensation for any medical condition with a nexus to military 
service, without regard to its demonstrated or proven impact 
upon a service member's retainability, fitness to serve, or 
narrative reason for release from military service.  The DVA 
compensation system was written to allow awarding compensation 
ratings for conditions that were not considered unfitting for 
military service at the time of release from military service.  
This is the reason why an individual can be found fit for 
release from military service and yet sometime thereafter 
receive compensation ratings from the DVA for service-connected, 
but militarily non-unfitting conditions.  The DVA is also 
empowered to conduct periodic re-evaluations for the purpose of 
adjusting the disability rating awards (increase or decrease) as 
the level of impairment from a given service connected medical 
condition may vary (improve or worsen, affecting future 
employability) over the lifetime of the veteran. 

Even if there was evidence to indicate the applicant should have 
been found unfit by an MEB, the applicant would have been 
confronted with a "dual-action" review of his case by the SAF 
Personnel Council (SAFPC), making him concurrently the subject 
of an approved involuntary separation and a medical separation. 
In such cases, the SAFPC would consider any mitigating or 
extenuating circumstances and any possible causal relationship 
between the applicant's administrative infractions and his 
medical condition in deciding upon the appropriate reason for 
release from military service.  Based on a thorough review of 
the evidence of record, SAFPC would have executed the approved 
administrative discharge after finding no causal or mitigating 
relationship between the administrative infractions and the 
medical condition.  

A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is 
at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation was forwarded 
to the applicant on 31 Jul 13, for review and comment within 
30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been 
received by this office.

________________________________________________________________

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 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 AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion 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.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) 
involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered.

________________________________________________________________

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-2013-00280 in Executive Session on 7 Oct 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Jan 12, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, 
	               dated 24 Jul 13.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 31 Jul 13.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair