RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00562

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES 




APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive an evaluation by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB), and his administrative discharge be changed to a medical separation or retirement. 



APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Had he received a proper medical examination prior to his discharge, the Air Force would have found out that he suffered from Tourette’s Syndrome, aggravated by his military Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC), and he would not have been demoted in rank and discharged from the Air Force for inadequate academic effort.

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



STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 12 Apr 78.

On 12 Jun 78, the applicant was counseled concerning his poor academic performance and tardiness in getting to class.

On 11 Jul 78, the applicant was given a letter of reprimand for failing to apply himself to learning the Russian language, and was eliminated from Russian language training for lack of effort (LOE).

On 13 Jul 78, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intention to recommend the applicant’s demotion to the grade of airman basic (E-1).

On 17 Jul 78, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intention to discharge him from the Air Force for failing to apply himself to learning the Russian language, poor academic performance, and tardiness in getting to class.  

On 27 Jul 78, the applicant notified his commander he did not concur with the recommendation for him to be demoted to airman basic, and that he would not be submitting matters in his own behalf, and that he did not elect to present his case before an impartial hearing officer. 

On 2 Aug 78, the applicant was demoted from the permanent grade of airman (E-2) to the permanent grade of airman basic (E-1), effective 2 Aug 78, with a date of rank 12 Apr 78.

On 14 Aug 78, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with four months and three days of active service.   

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.    



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice warranting granting the applicant’s request for a MEB, implicitly to replace his administrative discharge with a medical separation or retirement.  A review of the applicant’s records indicates he was at the Defense Language Institute, studying to become a Russian linguist.  However, early during his training he committed several minor administrative infractions, e.g., late for class, and he demonstrated a deficient aptitude for completing the training such that it resulted in his removal from training.  

The applicant contends that he had a condition referred to as Tourette’s Syndrome, a neurological disorder, characterized by repetitive, stereotyped, involuntary movements and vocalizations called tics.  Due to the wide variation in clinical manifestations of the disorder, ranging from mere repetitive blinking of the eyes to overt head-turning, shoulder shrugging, and verbal outbursts, the manifestations can be subtle and go unnoticed by close associates or relatives.  Had the applicant been diagnosed with this condition as a cause of his academic failures, he would unlikely qualify for MEB processing and referral to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).  Instead, he would still have been vulnerable for an involuntary discharge, as an Entry Level Separation (ELS) or under an alternate designation, e.g., Failed Medical Procurement Standards, for a condition that more likely than not existed prior to his entry to military service; largely based upon its occurrence so soon after the applicant’s entry to military service.  The Medical Consultant found no basis in science that the applicant’s attendance at the Defense Language Institute and his enrollment in a Russian language class would have constituted permanent service aggravation of this neurological disorder.  

It was noted that BCMR officials requested documentation from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) to accompany this review.  The Military Department, operating under Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), only offers compensation for an illness or injury that is the cause for career termination; and then only to the degree of impairment present at the “snapshot” in time of final military disposition.  Operating under a different set of laws, Title 38, U.S.C., the DVA is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition that it establishes a nexus with military service, narrative reason for release from service, or the intervening period (e.g., sometimes a decade later) since release from military service.  Thus, such a designation by the DVA does not prove a retroactive error has occurred in the narrative reason for the applicant’s release from service.  The Medical Consultant also notes that the applicant’s submission has not been timely filed and opines he has not met the burden of proof of error or injustice to warrant the desired change of the record.  

A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.



APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 28 Jul 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  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 an error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

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 material 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-2014-00562 in Executive Session on 27 Jan 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Feb 14.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 
	            21 May 14.	 
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jul 14.

						




2

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
1