RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01949
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

2.  His narrative reason for separation be changed to “physical 
disability.”

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge is unjust.  A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) 
should have been initiated; instead he was administratively 
discharged.  An honorable discharge is appropriate when the 
quality of the service has generally met standards of acceptable 
conduct and performance or is otherwise meritorious.  He was 
found guilty for his actions that resulted in Letters of 
Reprimand (LOR).  The rebuttals he presented were not even 
considered.  He accepts responsibility for his actions; however, 
they should not be considered a “pattern of misconduct.”  He has 
never been in trouble on duty and in fact has passed all 
training, certifications, furthered his education, attended 
squadron events and contributed to causes.

He was initially injured in 2010 during Basic Military Training 
(BMT); however, he was instructed not to go to the hospital if 
he could help it and to finish BMT and Technical School.  One 
year after his arrival to his first duty station he realized he 
could no longer bear the pain and had surgery.

In 2012, he reinjured his shoulder in a car accident.  His 
surgeon advised him that the only way to remain in the service 
was to have surgery involving a bone graft.  However, he elected 
not to have surgery due to the possible side effects.  His 
Primary Care Manager (PCM) advised him he would undergo an MEB 
because he would never be worldwide qualified.  His PCM also 
told him that he would receive a medical separation with no 
disability benefits because he had declined full military care.  
He was fine with this choice because he made the best decision 
concerning his health.  Later that day his commander 
administered the notification of discharge.  He was subsequently 
told by his PCM that the MEB process would be terminated due to 
his pending discharge.  He never signed documentation denying 
medical care, which meant he still had an opportunity to accept 
surgery.  He has no doubt that his discharge was processed 
because his commander knew he would be medically separated in 
the near future.  He refuses to believe that the Air Force would 
enforce a discharge that would deny a veteran medical care.

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, copies of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or 
Discharge from Active Duty; Referral Enlisted Performance Report 
(EPR), medical records, and various other documents associated 
with his request.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 7 Sep 2010, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force 
for a period of four years.

On 15 Oct 2012, his commander notified him he was recommending 
he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 
36-32, Military Retirements and Separations and AFI 36-3208, 
Administrative Separation of Airman.  The specific reasons for 
his action are reflected in the Notification Memorandum at 
Exhibit B.

On 15 Oct 2012, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
discharge notification and on 18 Oct 2012, he provided a 
rebuttal.

On 24 Oct 2012, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) found the 
discharge legally sufficient.  The applicant stated that he was 
undergoing a MEB; however, JA contacted his PCM who indicated 
the applicant was not undergoing an MEB, nor was he required to 
based on his current medical condition.

On 9 Nov 2012, the applicant was discharged with a service 
characterized as general (under honorable conditions).  His 
narrative reason for separation is Misconduct (Other).   He 
served a total of two years, two months and three days of active 
duty.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate office of 
the Air Force and the BCMR Medical Consultant.  Accordingly, 
there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of 
Proceedings.

________________________________________________________________



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  DPSOR states that based on the 
documentation on file in the master personnel records, the 
discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive 
requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the 
discretion of the discharge authority.  DPSOR found no error or 
injustice in the applicant's discharge from the Air Force, nor 
did the applicant submit any evidence or identify any errors or 
injustices in the discharge processing.  Airmen are subject to 
separation for misconduct that disrupts order, discipline, or 
morale within the military community.  This category of 
misconduct usually involves causing dissent, disruption, and 
degradation of mission effectiveness.  As reflected in the 
applicant's discharge package, he has shown a continued 
disregard for military standards and good order and discipline. 
The applicant received numerous counselings on various 
occasions.  Despite the unit's best efforts, he did not respond 
to the counselings he received.  His repeated incidents of 
misconduct were reflective of airmen who were unwilling to 
conform to Air Force Standards.  Moreover, according to AFI 36-
3208, paragraph 1.18.2, if an airman's service has been honest 
and faithful, a general (under honorable conditions) service 
characterization is warranted when significant negative aspects 
of the airman's conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive 
aspects of the airman's military record.  The negative aspects 
of the applicant’s short Air Force career outweigh the positive. 
Therefore, a general (under honorable conditions) service 
characterization is most appropriate in this case.

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The Medical 
Consultant states that the applicant implicitly contends that 
his administrative discharge was carried out to prevent him from 
receiving the medical discharge which he believes would have 
taken place, had it not been for his commander's intervention.  
Reflecting upon reasons for the applicant's initial proposed MEB 
action, the Medical Consultant is aware of policies covering 
actions when a service member refuses care or is noncompliant 
with recommended treatment.  However, given the uncertain 
outcome of a second surgical procedure to treat his shoulder, 
noting that it would also require bone grafting, he acted 
reasonably when he elected to decline this second procedure.  
Thus, had the applicant's MEB been continued with a subsequent 
review by a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), the PEB would have 
considered the reasonableness of the declination and would have 
found him unfit with disability compensation.  However, since 
the applicant would have been concurrently the subject of an 
approved administrative discharge, his case would have been 
referred to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council 
(SAFPC) for a "dual-action" review of both the administrative 
and medical bases for discharge, and to determine which was the 
appropriate reason for discharge and the appropriate 
characterization of service.  In conducting such reviews, the 
SAFPC considers the relative gravity of the administrative 
infractions and the seriousness of the medical condition, as 
well as a search for any causal or mitigating relationship 
between the administrative infractions and the medical 
condition, in making its final determination.  Since there is no 
causal or mitigating relationship between the applicant's 
shoulder ailment and his administrative infractions, had the 
applicant's MEB and PEB been continued, it is as likely as not 
that SAFPC would have set aside the medical discharge and 
executed the previously approved administrative discharge.  
Thus, aside from the appearance of an impropriety by issuance of 
the discharge notification on the very day of the planned MEB 
proceeding, notwithstanding the higher standards of conduct 
expected of security forces members, the Medical Consultant 
found this paper review alone insufficient to prove error or 
injustice to warrant the requested change of the record.  
However, viewing the applicant's case through the lens of a 
Discharge Review Board (DRB), the applicant could argue for an 
upgrade of discharge characterization to honorable, based upon a 
possible inequity or impropriety, e.g., the harshness of 
punishment, noting the issues in extenuation he raised in his 
rebuttals to the LORs, his response to the referral EPR, and in 
his response to the discharge notification.  However, the 
optimal venue for this review would be a personal appearance 
before the DRB, where the applicant's sworn or unsworn testimony 
can be heard, witness statements considered, live statements 
from witnesses may be heard, the assistance of legal counsel 
made available, and his post-service conduct and accomplishments 
collectively taken into consideration.

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He disputes the advisory opinions – specifically the Medical 
Consultant who underestimates the length of time he had his 
shoulder injury and minimizes its severity.  The applicant goes 
into extensive detail about the errors and injustices of his 
discharge and petitions the Board to approve his request.  He 
asserts he was found unfit for worldwide duty and medical 
personnel had an obligation to process him for a MEB.  The MEB 
should have been allowed to occur before any other 
administrative separation actions were allowed to take place.  
Instead he was administratively discharged.  He should be 
compensated for his injury.  He was permanently disqualified 
from worldwide duty. Therefore, if all instructions were 
followed, he would have been separated under the provisions of 
AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, and 
Separation, as well as, DoD Directive 1332.18, Separation or 
Retirement for Physical Disability, with a characterization of 
honorable and narrative reason of physical disability.

In further support of his request, the applicant provides 
extracts of AFI 36-3208, AFI 48-123, Medical Examinations and 
Standards, and various other documents related his appeal.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________

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 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 (OPR) 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.  While the 
applicant’s response to the BCMR Medical Consultant and Air 
Force OPR is noted, he has provided no evidence which, in our 
opinion, successfully refutes the assessment of his case by the 
aforementioned evaluations.  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 on 11 Feb 2014, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2013-01949:

 Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Apr 2013, w/atchs.
 Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
 Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 21 Jun 2013.
 Exhibit D.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 1 Jul 2013.
 Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 3 Jul 2013.
 Exhibit F.  Letter, Counsel, dated 4 Jul 2013, w/atchs.




								
								Panel Chair


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974


8

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974