RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00555
		COUNSEL: NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from 
Active Duty, be corrected to reflect the information contained 
in his original DD Form 214.  

2.  By letter, dated 27 Jan 13, the applicant amended his 
request to change his DD Form 214 to reflect a medical 
disability with an honorable character of service to coincide 
with his Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) ratings.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His original signed DD Form 214 differs from the one currently 
filed in his personnel records.  

He was given a general discharge from the Air Force for 
Fraudulent Enlistment after 2 years, 6 months, and 3 days for 
not stating that he had been in trouble for drug possession.  
His case was placed on a deferred entry of judgment to be 
dismissed and never resulted in a conviction.  Because the case 
was not a conviction and it was to be dismissed by the court, 
his recruiter stated the initial disclosure and all additional 
questions regarding drug use should all be listed as "NO." He 
was convinced by his recruiter that because there was no 
conviction, he was not concealing or falsifying information.  
Unfortunately, he was young and too naive to know that was not 
the correct course of action. 

At the time of his discharge, he had missed a significant amount 
of work and had just undergone a wrist surgery that has left him 
with only partial movement of his left wrist (classified as a 
10% disability with the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). 

After he was discharged, he was advised by a lawyer at Barksdale 
Air Force Base that "a waiver should have been issued for the 
Fraudulent Enlistment" and that it "probably had to do with my 
medical conditions.”  

He was recently diagnosed with Hypothyroidism which has also 
been rated by the DVA at 10%.   The injuries he suffered while 
on active duty have resulted in a 20 percent disability rating 
from the DVA.  

Since his discharge he has graduated Cum Laude with a B.S. in 
Engineering and continues to volunteer in his community. He was 
actively involved in school as the student chapter president of 
the International Society of Automation, a member of the 
Associated Engineering Student Body and provides other post-
service information.

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, copies of his DD Form 214, AF Form 422, Physical 
Profile Serial; his Air Force Achievement Medal Certificate, DVA 
Rating Decision memorandum, college diploma and transcripts, 
newspaper article and other various documents associated with 
his request. 

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 18 Oct 00, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.  

On 1 Apr 03, the applicant was notified of his commander’s 
intent to recommend he be discharged from the Air Force under 
the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of 
Airmen.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge 
notification and after consulting with counsel, submitted a 
statement on his own behalf.  For a full accounting of the 
offenses, please see the commander’s notification letter at 
Exhibit B.  

The Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case and found it legally 
sufficient to support discharge and recommended the applicant 
receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge with 
the offer of probation and rehabilitation.

On 18 Apr 03, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s 
discharge.  On 21 Apr 03, the applicant was discharged for 
fraudulent entry into military service with service 
characterized as general (under honorable conditions).  He 
served two years, six months and 3 days of total active service.  

On 9 Sep 05, the DVA granted the applicant service-connection 
for status post left wrist ganglion cyst, with tender scare and 
limited range of motion and hypothyroidism with a 20 percent 
disability rating. 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C and D.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
change his character of service, separation code, reentry code, 
and narrative reason for separation.  The applicant should not 
have been allowed to join the Air Force because of pleading 
guilty to possession of drugs.  Had the Air Force known of this 
condition at the time of his enlistment, he would not have been 
allowed entry into the military.  Based on the documentation on 
file in the applicant’s personnel records, the discharge was 
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of 
the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the 
discharge authority.  The base legal office reviewed the case 
and found it legally sufficient to support the discharge.

DPSOR states that the applicant did not submit any evidence or 
identify any error or injustices that occurred in the discharge 
processing.  He provided no facts warranting an upgrade to his 
character of service, separation code, and narrative reason for 
separation.

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The BCMR Medical Advisor recommends denial of the applicant’s 
request for a medical disability rating.  The Medical Advisor 
states that based upon the supplied medical documentation, there 
is no evidence to support an injury or medical condition that 
interfered with the applicant’s military service to the extent 
or sustained duration that warranted a Medical Evaluation Board 
(MEB) and processing through the military Disability Evaluation 
System (DES) for a medical separation or retirement.  The 
applicant was able to reasonably perform the duties of his 
office, grade, rank, and rating.  

The Medical Advisor opines that the military departments, 
operating under Title 10, United States Code (USC), can only 
offer compensation for an illness, disease, or injury that is 
the cause of career termination; and then only to the degree of 
impairment present at the time of separation and not based on 
future occurrences.  Whereas, operating under a different set of 
laws, Title 38, USC, the DVA is authorized to offer compensation 
for any medical condition determined service-incurred, without 
regard to its proven or demonstrated impact upon a service 
member’s retainability, fitness to serve, or narrative reason 
for release from military service.  This is the reason why an 
individual may be released from military service for one reason, 
yet receive compensation ratings from the DVA for conditions 
that were service-connected, but not found militarily unfitting 
for continued military service.  

The complete BCMR Medical Advisor evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 20 Apr 13, for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit E).  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 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 error or injustice.  We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we find no basis to warrant changing his DD 
Form 214 to reflect the information contained in his original DD 
Form 214. In this respect, we note that on 18 Mar 13, 
AFPC/DPSIPV notified the applicant that his DD Form 214 issued 
at the time of discharge was determined to be incorrect and was 
voided and reissued on 20 May 03.  Specifically, DPSIPV noted 
that time spent in an enlistment determined to be fraudulent and 
has been specifically terminated by reason of fraud is not 
creditable service in accordance with AFI 36-3202, Separation 
Documents and the Department of Defense (DoD) Financial 
Management Regulation Volume 7A, chapter 1.  Therefore we find 
no basis to disturb the record.  Regarding his request to change 
his DD Form 214 to reflect an honorable character of service, 
based on the available evidence of record, it appears the 
discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of 
the discharge regulation and within the commander's 
discretionary authority.  The applicant has not provided 
sufficient evidence which would lead us to believe the 
characterization of the service was contrary to the provisions 
of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate 
to the offenses committed.  As such, we find no evidence of an 
error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing.  
Moreover, there has been no showing that he had an unfitting 
medical condition that would have required his processing 
through the Military Disability Evaluation System – a 
prerequisite to a medical discharge.  In the interest of 
justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on 
clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is 
sufficient to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought 
on that basis.  Accordingly, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that 
he has been the victim of an error or injustice.  In view of the 
above and 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 Docket Number    
BC-2013-00555 in Executive Session on 19 Nov 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				Panel Chair
				Member
				Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Jan 13, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Available Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 4 Apr 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, BCMR Medical Advisor, dated 18 Apr 13.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Apr 13.




								
								Panel Chair
4


5