RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-04735
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His narrative reason for separation of “disability, existed 
prior to service, Physical Evaluation Board (PEB)” and 
corresponding Separation code of “JFM;” be changed to reflect 
“Convenience of the Government.”  

2.  His Reentry (RE) code of 2Q (Personnel medically retired or 
discharged) be changed to “1” (eligible code).

3.  His character of service be changed from “uncharacterized” 
to “honorable.”

4.  All psychiatric records be removed.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is not seeking additional benefits or monetary compensation; 
he only wants his record corrected.  He was humiliated, 
ridiculed and received unequitable treatment by United States 
Air Force (USAF) medical officers.

His discharge was improper because it was based on hearsay, 
falsification of government records by USAF medical officers and 
enlisted airmen.  There was misleading information submitted to 
the USAF PEB by several individuals.  There is evidence of 
forgery and alteration of government records on his 
DD Form 2648, Preseparation Counseling Checklist and SSA-795, 
Statement of Claimant or Other Person.  

He was never permitted to receive counsel or make rational 
decisions because of heavy medical sedation despite his protests 
of having adverse reactions.

The Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider 
his application because he never knew he was able to receive his 
medical record nor did he know about the existence of the Board.

In support of his appeal, the applicant through his Member of 
Congress provides a personal statement; copies of his DD Form 
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, 
issued in conjunction with his 26 Apr 01 entry level separation; 
excerpts from his medical/discharge package and various other 
documents associated with his requests.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 9 Jan 01, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for 
a period of four years.  

On 4 Mar 01, the applicant was brought to the Emergency Room by 
security forces personnel after making homicidal statements 
toward his chain of command.  The applicant was diagnosed with 
Bipolar Disorder and referred for a Medical Evaluation Board 
(MEB).

On 29 Mar 01, an MEB diagnosed the applicant with Bipolar 
Disorder and referred him to the Informal PEB (IPEB).  On 5 Apr 
01, the IPEB diagnosed the applicant with Category II conditions 
that can be found unfitting but are not compensable or ratable: 
Bipolar Disorder, Severe Social and Industrial Adaptability 
Impairment.  The applicant agreed with the findings of the IPEB.

On 6 Apr 01, the SAFPC determined that the applicant was 
physically unfit for continued military service due to a 
physical disability which existed prior to military service and 
directed the applicant be discharged with disability benefits.  

On 26 Apr 01, the applicant was discharged with an entry level 
separation under the provisions of AFI 36-3212, Physical 
Evaluation for Retention, Retirement and Separations, with a 
reason for separation of “disability, existed prior to service, 
PEB,” with uncharacterized service.  He was credited with 
3 months and 18 days of active duty service.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AETC/SGPS recommends denial of the applicant’s request to have 
his separation diagnoses expunged from his file.

On 20 Mar 01, a narrative summary was written stating that the 
applicant’s mental health diagnosis was disqualifying for 
military service.  The applicant acknowledged that he understood 
this and that he would continue medical treatment after 
separation.  Subsequently he was processed for an entry level 
separation. 

Based on the documentation on file, SGPA finds the separation 
was done in accordance with established policy and 
administrative procedures.  The applicant has not presented a 
mental health evaluation by a psychiatrist noting the condition 
has resolved along with a positive long term prognosis.

The complete SGPA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFMOA/SGH recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove 
medical documentation relating to psychiatric diagnosis and 
treatment.

Upon review of Standard Form 93, Report of Medical History, 
dated 30 Jun 00, the applicant annotated "no" to reference of 
having been treated for a mental condition, yet information 
reveals that during adolescence he had been in the care of 
Mental Health and Social Work Professionals.  The medical care 
and diagnosis provided to the applicant was subsequent to the 
inpatient stay at a civilian hospital.  The documented 
professional judgment of attending providers does not indicate 
improper diagnosis or treatment that would provide misleading 
medical history.

The complete SGH evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
change his type of separation and characterization of service.  
DPSOR states that the procedural and substantive requirements 
were met in accordance with AFI 36-3208, Administrative 
Separation of Airmen, and Department of Defense (DoD) 
instructions.

Airmen are given Entry-level separation/uncharacterized service 
characterization when separation is initiated in the first 
180 days continuous active service.  The DOD determined if a 
member served less than 180 days continuous active service, it 
would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize 
their limited service.  Therefore, the uncharacterized character 
of service on his DD Form 214 is correct and in accordance with 
Department of Defense (DoD) and Air Force instructions.

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
change his RE code.  The applicant's RE code 2Q is correct per 
AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the USAF, chapter 5, based on his 
disability discharge and his DD Form 214 accurately reflects the 
correct RE code.

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 18 April 14 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit G).  

________________________________________________________________



FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD:

After careful consideration of applicant’s request and 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, and we are not persuaded that the record raises 
issues of error or injustice which require resolution on the 
merits.  Thus, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of 
justice to excuse the untimely filing of this application. 

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 the Board's understanding of the issues 
involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered.

________________________________________________________________

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-2013-04735 in Executive Session on 19 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 20 Sep 13, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Pertinent Excerpts from Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AETC/SGPS, dated 17 Dec 13.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFMOA/SGH, dated 7 Feb 14.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 25 Feb 14.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 2 Apr 14.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Apr 14.




                                   



2