RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-04500

			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be changed to 
a medical discharge.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was discharged directly to a Veteran’s Affairs hospital where 
he was an on and off patient until 1978.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 29 July 1971.  On 
11 September 1973, he was notified of his commander’s intent to 
discharge him from the Air Force for apathetic and defective 
attitude as evidenced by his performance.  The applicant had 
received two Article 15’s, one Letter of Reprimand, and a Court 
Order.  The applicant stated that his situation was hopeless and 
that he would to whatever was necessary, including misconduct, 
to affect a discharge from the Air Force.  He acknowledged the 
nature of the action, his right to submit a rebuttal and make 
statements on his behalf and counseled that he may waive such 
rights.  The applicant waived his right to submit a rebuttal. 

On 28 September 1973, the staff judge advocate found the 
discharge legally sufficient and recommended the commander 
discharge the applicant with a general discharge.  On 4 October 
1973, the commander approved the discharge and directed he be 
separated with a general discharge.  The applicant was separated 
on 15 November 1973 with a general (under honorable conditions) 
discharge.  He was credited with 2 Years, 3 months and 16 days 
of active duty service. 

________________________________________________________________


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR IMA Medical Advisor recommends denial.  In 
consideration of the appeal for a medical discharge, the 
reviewer must evaluate whether a medical or mental health 
condition was unfitting at the time of separation and was, 
itself, the cause of service termination.  More importantly, the 
reviewer must evaluate medical and administrative documentation 
to determine whether an error or injustice occurred with respect 
to the applicant’s appeal.

The administrative record contains clear and convincing evidence 
of repeated episodes of misconduct and failures of basic 
judgment expected of all airman to uphold.  Of significance is 
the applicant’s response to the evaluation officer during a 
counseling session on 20 September 1973 where the applicant 
states that his situation is hopeless in his opinion and that he 
was destined to do only the most menial task for the remainder 
of his military service.  Therefore, he stated, he intended to 
do whatever necessary to leave the service, including, 
misconduct.  The evaluation officer concluded that the applicant 
was unsuitable for further military service due to his apathetic 
and defective attitude as evidenced by his disciplinary record, 
statements during the interview confirming efforts to do 
whatever is necessary including misconduct and unsuccessful 
rehabilitation attempts.

To evaluate whether a medical condition rendered the applicant 
unfit at the time of separation and thus represented the cause 
of service termination, the reviewer must examine the available 
medical evidence.  Apart from one documented seizure in 1973, 
there is insufficient clinical evidence to support the 
proposition that a seizure disorder, mental health disorder or 
any other medical condition rendered him unfit for duty.  To the 
contrary, the applicant’s performance reports from 1971 through 
1973 demonstrated the applicant was indeed capable of performing 
his assigned duties at or above performance levels when proper 
focus and discipline was applied.  This demonstrates the 
applicant was capable of satisfactory performance and that no 
unfitting health condition was the cause for service 
termination.

The reviewer concurs with the administrative discharge.  While a 
dual-action course could have also been applied to this case, 
there is no medical evidence of an unfitting or mental health 
condition which would meet the requirements for dual-action 
approach.  

The BCMR IMA Medical Advisor’s complete 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 25 April 2014, for review and comment within 
30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, this office has received 
no response.

________________________________________________________________

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 are not persuaded by the 
evidence submitted in this appeal that a change in the record is 
warranted.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the BCMR IMA Medical Advisor and adopt his 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion and find that the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  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 issues involved.  
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered.

________________________________________________________________

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-2013-04500 in Executive Session on 24 June 2014, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-04500 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dtd 1 Sep 13, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR IMA Medical Advisor, dtd 8 Apr 14.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dtd 25 Apr 14.