RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-03211
			COUNSEL:  NONE
			HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________
__

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation be changed from “Misconduct” 
to “Medical.”

________________________________________________________________
__

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His unsatisfactory job performance that led to his discharge was 
due to his undiagnosed Attention Deficient Hyperactivity 
Disorder (ADHD).  Following his discharge he was diagnosed with 
ADHD, and received the proper treatment, which completely 
relieved his symptoms.  He is a single parent and working full 
time to support his daughter.  Additionally, he was recently 
admitted to Southern Methodist University.  He has a 3.695 Grade 
Point Average (GPA) and was invited to become a member of the 
University Honors Program.  He belongs to the Honors Institute, 
made the Dean’s List and the President’s List with perfect 
academic performance achieving a 4.0 GPA.  He is studying to 
become an attorney and has not forgotten the values and the 
training he learned in the Air Force.  Had he not been limited 
by his medical condition, he would have made the Air Force a 
career.

In support of his request the applicant provides copies of his 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty; work history, medical documents, education documents and 
various other documents associated with his request.

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

________________________________________________________________
__

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 1 Dec 1992, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.

On 29 Aug 1994, his commander notified him he was recommending 
he be discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, 
Administrative Separation of Airmen, for conduct prejudicial to 
good order and discipline.  The specific reasons for his action 
were that he received two Article 15s, three Letters of 
Reprimand and two Letters of Counseling in a thirteen month 
period.


On 29 Aug 1994, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
discharge notification and was afforded the opportunity to 
submit statements in his own behalf.

On 6 Sep 1994, the Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge 
legally sufficient.

On 6 Sep 1994, the discharge authority approved the separation 
and directed a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

On 8 Sep 1984, the applicant received a general (under honorable 
conditions) discharge.  He was credited with one year, nine 
months and eight days of total active service.

________________________________________________________________
__

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states that documentation on 
file in the master personnel record supports the basis for 
discharge.  The discharge to include the service 
characterization was appropriately administered and within the 
discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not 
submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that 
occurred in the discharge processing.  

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The BCMR Medical Consultant regrettably recommends denial.  
There is no indication that any diagnosable mental disorder 
obstructed his ability to distinguish right from wrong during 
his military service; nor rendered him incompetent in thought 
processes and decision-making.  The nature of the applicant's 
infractions are not diagnostic of ADHD or any other mental 
impairment, as these may occur in individuals with no organic or 
developmental mental disorder.  Thus, the Medical Consultant was 
unable to establish a definitive cause and effect relationship 
between the applicant's infractions and his post-service 
diagnosis of ADHD.  The Medical Consultant is sensitive to the 
applicant's career objectives and the possible adverse effect 
his DD Form 214 may have upon his future aspirations, e.g., 
public service.  For this reason, the Medical Consultant 
recommends the applicant consider the option of presenting his 
case before a Personal Appearance Discharge Review Board, via DD 
Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed 
Forces of the United State, where he would have access to legal 
counsel, could present sworn or unsworn statements, and present 
witnesses on his behalf, along with consideration of his post-
service behavior and conduct; if he feels his discharge was 
inappropriate. 

?
The applicant's current educational pursuits and aspirations 
certainly are not reflective of an individual who was 
chronically late for work and unkempt in his military bearing.  
However, he has not met his burden of proof.  The discharge 
authority acted within his authority to separate the applicant 
after such a lengthy series of minor disciplinary infractions, 
spanning his entire brief period of service.  The applicant's 
assignment to Security Forces likely mandated a higher standard 
of conduct; hence the possible perception of harshness or a 
"quick trigger" in issuing the applicant reprimands and 
counselings and the ultimate decision to administratively 
discharge him for misconduct.

The complete Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________
__

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 23 Dec 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.  As of 
this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit 
E).

________________________________________________________________
__

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 in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their 
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.

______________________________________________________________

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 this application 
in Executive Session 15 Apr 2014, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603:

       , Panel Chair
       , Member
       , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2013-03211:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Jun 2013, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 30 Aug 2013.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, BCMR Medical Advisory, dated 
                20 Dec 2013.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 23 Dec 2013.




                                    
                                   Panel Chair