RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-05669
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded 
to honorable.

His narrative reason for separation (Misconduct – Minor 
Infractions) be changed to medical.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

A Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rating decision dated 
31 July 2013 awarded him compensation for primary insomnia at 
30 percent.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 January 
2008.

The applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to 
recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the 
provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, Misconduct (Minor 
Infractions).  The specific reasons are that the applicant 
received two Records of Individual Counseling, one Letter of 
Counseling, one Letter of Reprimand and numerous Article 15s for 
failure to report to his place of duty from 7 October 2009 to 
9 November 2011.








He was advised of his rights in this matter and elected to 
submit a statement on his own behalf.  In a legal review of the 
case file, the staff judge advocate found the case legally 
sufficient and recommended discharge.  

The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and 
directed a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  The 
applicant was discharged on 18 January 2012.  He served 4 years 
and 17 days on active duty and credited with 2 years, 10 months 
and 14 days of foreign service.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  DPSOR states based on the 
applicant's overall performance, the discharge authority 
approved a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  
According to AFI 36-3208, Paragraph 1.18.2, a general discharge 
is appropriate when “significant negative aspects of the 
airman’s conduct or performance of duty outweighs positive 
aspects of the airman’s military record.”  The discharge 
authority determined that the applicant’s misconduct in this 
case clearly outweighed the positive aspects of his service.  
Therefore, the separation program designator (SPD) code, 
narrative reason for separation, and service characterization 
are all correct as indicated on the applicant's DD Form 214 and 
are consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements 
of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of 
the discharge authority.  The applicant provided no evidence 
that an error or injustice occurred in the processing of his 
discharge.

The DPSOR complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the 
applicant’s petition to change the reason for discharge to 
medical.  However, the Board may consider a partial grant to 
upgrade the applicant's character of service to honorable and 
his narrative reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant states under the presumption of 
regularity, particularly noting the repetitive nature of the 
applicant's infractions, the Medical Consultant did not readily 
find evidence of an error or injustice in the discharge 
action.  

Additionally, although the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) 
has chosen to assign the applicant disability compensation for 
the diagnosis of Primary Insomnia, the symptoms displayed by the 
applicant during his military service were attributed to his 
Alcohol Related Disorders and personal/occupational stressors, 
resulting in the diagnosis of Adjustment Insomnia; neither which 
is a medical condition qualifying for processing as a 
compensable disability through the military Disability 
Evaluation System.  Specifically, the military health care 
provider determined that the applicant's Insomnia seemed to be 
“associated with personal and occupational stressors and alcohol 
usage” and that his “alcohol usage increased the sleep 
fragmentation.”  The applicant's insomnia was also not 
associated with other potentially unfitting compensable 
conditions, e.g., Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Anxiety 
Disorder; nor an untreated obstructive sleep apnea.  Operating 
under a different set of laws, Title 38, United States Code, the 
DVA is authorized to offer compensation for any medical 
condition it determines service incurred; without regard to its 
demonstrated impact upon a former service member’s fitness to 
serve or the narrative reason for release from military 
service.  

Nevertheless, viewing the totality of the applicant’s case 
through the lens of an Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB), 
the Medical Consultant opines the applicant's self-motivation to 
seek early intervention via the ADAPT program, his successful 
completion of the program, and his personal and occupational 
stressors resulting in Adjustment Insomnia, the Board may 
consider these under matters of mitigation and extenuation in 
upgrading his character of service.  In any case, the Medical 
Consultant opines the applicant has not met the burden of proof 
that warrants changing his reason for discharge to medical.  The 
applicant may yet to decide to withdraw his application to the 
BCMR and apply for a personal appearance before the Air Force 
DRB, utilizing DD Form 293.  Doing so will allow him to exercise 
this alternative administrative remedy, gain access to legal 
counsel, present witnesses who may speak on his behalf, and 
present any post-service evidence to support his contentions.  
If denied an upgrade by the DRB, the applicant will preserve his 
eligibility to apply for relief via the AFBCMR.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at 
Exhibit B.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 12 September 2014, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 
30 days (Exhibit C).  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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  After a 
thorough review of the evidence of record, it is our opinion 
that given the circumstances surrounding his separation from the 
Air Force, the character of service and narrative reason for 
separation assigned were proper and in compliance with the 
appropriate instructions.  We took note of the BCMR Medical 
Consultant’s recommendation; however, we agree with the 
AFPC/DPSOR and adopt its rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion 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 the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of an 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-2013-05669 in Executive Session on 4 December 2014, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:









The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-05669 was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 December 2013, w/atchs.
  Exhibit B.  Available Master Personnel Records.
  Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 14 January 2014.
  Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant,
	            dated 13 June 2014.
  Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 September 2014.