RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02779
	
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to 
a Honorable Discharge.

2.  The narrative reason for separation be removed from his records.

3.  His rank be reinstated to Airman First Class (A1C).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and was demoted because the 
medical evidence was unavailable to substantiate he was experiencing 
medical problems.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) has established that his 
medical condition (Parkinson’s Disease) was directly related to his 
military service.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted in 
the Regular Air Force on 23 Nov 87.

On 24 Apr 89, the applicant was notified by his commander of his 
intent to recommend his discharge for Misconduct under the provisions 
of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen.  The reasons for 
the action included dereliction of duty, failure to obey a lawful 
order, failure to maintain standards, failure to report, making a 
false statement, being disrespectful to a commissioned officer, 
making a threat, and vacation of suspended punishment, all in 
violation of various articles of the UCMJ,; for which he received 
verbal, counseling, letters of counseling (LOC), a letter of 
reprimand (LOR), and NJP. 

The commander noted in his recommendation for discharge that the 
applicant underwent a mental health evaluation on 9 Nov 88 and was 
found to be mentally competent, qualified for world-wide duty, and 
capable to understand and participate in any administrative 
proceedings.  The commander further noted numerous attempts were 
provided to applicant to meet Air Force standards; however, all 
attempts were unsuccessful.

On 5 May 89, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification 
and, after consulting with legal counsel, elected to submit a 
statement in his own behalf.

On 11 May 89, the legal office reviewed the case and found it legally 
sufficient and recommended the applicant be furnished a general 
discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

On 16 May 89, the discharge authority concurred with the commander’s 
recommendation and directed the applicant’s discharge.  On 25 May 89, 
the applicant was furnished a general (under honorable conditions) 
discharge, with a narrative reason for separation of “misconduct-
pattern conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline,” and was 
credited with two years, and seven months, and two days of total 
active service.

On 3 Oct 11, according to documentation provided by the applicant, 
the DVA awarded the applicant service connection and compensation for 
Parkinson’s disease, effective 25 Jun 04.

A request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant 
on 25 Feb 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C).  As 
of this date, no response has been received by this office.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no 
evidence of an error or injustice.  The applicant states he was 
experiencing medical distress at the time of his separation.  A 
review of the medical records provided did not reveal the applicant 
was diagnosed or experiencing any acute, chronic medical or mental 
health condition that was deemed unfitting while on active duty or at 
the time his separation from military service.  The applicant's 
health care provider noted on 2 Dec 88, that he was unable to 
substantiate any clinical diagnosis with respect to the applicant.  
It was further noted the applicant was discharged from the hospital 
yesterday in perfect health, but commented that, he can't guarantee 
the same thing won't happen when he returned to corrective custody.  
The health care provider strongly believed the applicant may have 
been abusing the system.  In addition the applicant was evaluated by 
a neurologist and received several mental health evaluations to 
determine whether a medical or mental health diagnosis could be 
established.  There was no evidence of any mental health or physical 
condition which would remotely explain or represent the basis for the 
applicant's repeated instances of misconduct and missed opportunities 
to implement corrective actions.  In fact, throughout the applicant’s 
enlistment, he was physically fit for duty and world-wide qualified.  
The Superintendent of Correctional Custody program noted whenever the 
applicant was given physical work to do, he became very sick and had 
to go to the hospital.  The applicant had been admitted to the 
hospital three times and released back to correctional custody twice, 
only to be re-admitted into the hospital within a couple of hours.  
The Superintendent further noted this was a waste of time for the 
hospital staff, correctional custody, and the United States Air Force 
to continue to play this game with the applicant.

Without sufficient documentation of a medical condition or 
disqualifying mental health condition, the action to administratively 
discharge the applicant was appropriate.  The applicant clearly 
demonstrated a pattern of misconduct which justified an 
administrative separation not due to any medical condition or mental 
health diagnosis.  The military Disability Evaluation System (DES) 
was established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force and can, 
by law, only offer compensation for those service incurred diseases 
or injures which specifically rendered a service member unfit for 
continued active service and were the cause for career termination; 
and then only for the degree of impairment present at the time of 
separation and not based on future developments.  Per Department of 
Defense Instruction 1332.32, Physical Disability Evaluation, a 
service member shall be considered unfit when the evidence 
establishes that the member, due to physical disability, is unable to 
reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or 
rating to include duties during a remaining period of Reserve 
obligation. 

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 
4 Apr 14, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E).  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 error or injustice.  We took notice of the 
applicant's complete submission and his contentions were duly noted.  
However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions and the 
documentation presented in support of his appeal sufficient to 
override the rationale provided by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant.  
Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the AFBCMR 
Medical Consultant adopt his rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or 
injustice.  In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the 
applicant’s discharge on the basis of clemency; however, we do not 
find the documentation presented sufficient to conclude that his 
activities since leaving the service are sufficient to overcome the 
misconduct for which he was discharged.  Therefore, in the absence of 
any evidence the applicant’s non-judicial punishment (NJP), 
administrative discharge, and narrative reason for separation 
represented an abuse of authority or were disproportionate to the 
circumstances, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought in this application.

________________________________________________________________

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-2013-02779 in Executive Session on 8 May 14, under the provisions 
of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

?
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number 
BC-2013-02779 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Jun 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Feb 14,/atch.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, 
	            dated 1 Apr 14.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Apr 14.




                                   Panel Chair