RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-04647
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be changed to a medical retirement.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have been medically retired due to an injury he 
sustained while on active duty that caused him to be 
incompetent.  He was incorrectly diagnosed.

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty; Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rating decision and 
extracts from his military personnel records.

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 19 Sep 88.

On 10 Jul 89, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was 
initiating action to discharge him from the Air Force for 
unsatisfactory duty performance specifically he failed to 
successfully complete a required course of technical training, 
In Accordance With (IAW) Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-10, 
Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5-26a.

On 10 Jul 89, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
discharge, was afforded the opportunity to consult military 
counsel and to submit statements in his own behalf.  On 13 Jul 
89, the applicant consulted counsel and submitted statements on 
his behalf.

On 19 Jul 89, the staff judge advocate found the recommendation 
for discharge legally sufficient.    

On 26 Jul 89, the recommendation for discharge was approved by 
the discharge authority.

On 28 Jul 89, the applicant was discharged with an honorable 
characterization of service and narrative reason for separation 
of “Unsatisfactory Performance.”  He served 10 months and 
10 days on active duty.

According to the 1 Oct 08, DVA Rating decision provided by the 
applicant, he received an overall or combined rating of 
100 percent for schizoaffective disorder effective 26 Jul 05.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  A review of the applicant’s 
master personnel records reflect the discharge, to include the 
Separation Program Designator (SPD) code, narrative reason for 
separation and character of service, was appropriately 
administered and within the discretion of the discharge 
authority.  The applicant was counseled concerning his academic 
failure and was given opportunities to improve, but with no 
success.  He also had approximately four instances where he 
reported late to class and one instance where he was not in 
proper dress and appearance standards after haven already been 
counseled about it earlier.  This was the applicant’s second 
training course failure and the commander determined that the 
applicant’s inability to put forth the effort needed to 
successfully complete technical training along with his failures 
to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty did 
not merit any further rehabilitative efforts and the applicant 
was recommended for discharge.  There was no evidence of an 
error or injustice in the discharge processing.  

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  Due to the total 
span of time since the applicant’s discharge, it is virtually 
impossible to now invalidate as erroneous, the lack of mental 
defect by a presumably competent military medical authority and 
the administrative decisions rendered by those familiar with the 
applicant’s pattern of performance at the time of his military 
service.  The alleged error or injustice is based largely upon 
newly reported statements but presented decades post-service and 
retroactively applied.

The military Disability Evaluation System (DES), established to 
maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law, under Title 
10, United States Code (U.S.C.), only offer compensation for 
those service incurred diseases or injuries which specifically 
rendered a 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 occurrences.  On the other hand, operating under a 
different set of laws, Title 38, U.S.C., which governs the DVA 
compensation system, was written to allow awarding compensation 
ratings for any condition with a nexus with military service. 
The DVA is chartered to offer compensation and care to all 
eligible veterans for any service-connected disease or injury 
without regard to whether it was unfitting for continued 
military service.  

The Military Department acted within its authority to separate 
the applicant based upon the evidence present at the time of 
military service.  Similarly, the DVA has acted within its 
authority to establish a nexus between the applicant’s 
difficulties during military service and the progressive display 
of symptoms since leaving military service.  However, the 
applicant has not met the burden of proof of error or injustice 
that warrants the desired change of the record.  

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant provides a signed statement from his mother 
reiterating the applicant’s contention that his behavior issues 
were the direct result of an injury he sustained from hitting 
his head on a bedpost while in Basic Military Training (BMT).  
His mother asserts that her son was just fine prior to this 
accident.

The complete Applicant’s Response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD:

After careful consideration of the evidence of record, we find 
the application untimely.  The applicant did not file within 
three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered 
as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and 
Air Force Instruction 36-2603.  The applicant has not shown a 
sufficient reason for the delay in filing on a matter now dating 
over 24 years, which has greatly complicated the ability to 
determine the merits of his position.  He has not provided 
evidence that supports he is the victim of error or injustice.  
Therefore, in view of the above, we cannot conclude it would be 
in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to 
file in a timely manner.

________________________________________________________________
DECISION OF THE BOARD:

The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the 
interest of justice to waive the untimeliness.  It is the 
decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as 
untimely.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-04647 in Executive Session on 7 Aug 14, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	                            , Panel Chair
	                      , Member
	                   , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Sep 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 13 Mar 14.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, BCMR Medical Advisor, dated 7 May 14.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 May 14.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 May 14, w/atchs.




                                   

                                  

4