RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2014-01043
	
				COUNSEL:  NONE

				HEARING DESIRED:  NO



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded 
to honorable. 

She be granted a medical discharge/retirement.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She is undergoing a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) to determine 
her medical fitness.  She is a disabled veteran as rated by the 
Veteran’s Affairs and she requests a medical separation.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Air National Guard on 26 February 
1997.  

On 8 February 2014, the MDNG/AG/AIR recommended the applicant be 
discharged from the Maryland Air National Guard (MDANG) and the 
Reserve of the Air Force in the interest of national security.  
Specifically, on 4 March 2013, the applicant’s security 
clearance was revoked and she was unable to obtain the required 
level of clearance for her assignment.  On 9 February 2014, the 
MDANG/JAG found the discharge legally sufficient and recommended 
the applicant be discharged with service characterized as under 
other than honorable conditions (UOTHC).

On 12 February 2014, the applicant was relieved from her 
assignment with the Air National Guard.  Her discharge was 
characterized as under other than honorable conditions.  She was 
credited with 15 years, 6 months and 25 days total service for 
pay.



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/SGPA recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  The 
applicant was injured in March 2003, when she fell during an ice 
storm while on active duty.  Her injury was later found to be in 
the Line of Duty (LOD).  She sought care for pain in her foot 
while on orders from 1 August 2011 through 2 August 2011.  The 
applicant claimed the pain was in relation to the injuries 
incurred in 2003 – she was unable to wear boots issued to her 
for training.  She was evaluated and found to have a normal exam 
through radiology and was returned to duty with an AF Form 422, 
Notification of Air Force Members Qualification Status, stating 
that she did not have to wear boots while in training.

The applicant was returned to duty after her injury in 2003.  
She was evaluated again in 2011 and again, returned to duty.  
She has never been referred to an MEB; therefore, she cannot be 
separated under medical conditions. 

The complete NGB/SGPA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

NGB/A1PP recommends denial of the applicant’ request.  The 
applicant was injured in March 2003.  A Line of Duty (LOD) 
determination was made confirming the injury occurred while on 
active duty.  She was returned to duty shortly thereafter.  Years 
later, the applicant sought care for pain in her foot in August 
of 2011 claiming the pain was connected to her injures from her 
fall in 2003.  She was returned to duty after being issued an 
AF Form 422 stating she was not required to wear military- 
issued boots due to pain/discomfort.  No serious medical concern 
resulted from either the 2003 or 2011 visit with her health care 
provider.

Both times the applicant sought help for issues with pain she was 
returned to duty.  She was not referred to nor did she meet an 
MEB; therefore, she cannot be separated under medical conditions.  
Furthermore, her UOTHC discharge was not connected to any medical 
issues.

The applicant is not eligible to receive a medical discharge.

The complete NGB/A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit D.

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s 
request.  The applicant received a UOTHC discharge in the 
interest of national security.  She asks for an "Honorable 
discharge and medical separation (retirement)."  In order for 
the applicant to receive a medical discharge, there must be a 
medical condition that precludes retention.  She has provided 
such evidence in the form of the AF Form 469, Duty Limiting 
Condition Report, initiated on 6 December 2013, placing 
her on mobility restrictions and referring her through the 
DES for what was determined a non-duty related condition.  
That is, by policy, the applicant would only be eligible for 
review through the DES for "fitness only," since the medical 
condition would not warrant processing as a compensable 
disability under AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for 
Retention, Retirement and Separation.  This conclusion was 
reached by medical officials in 2013, despite the prior In 
Line of Duty (ILOD) determination approved in October 2011 
related to her painful episode on or about 1 August 2011 
reportedly related to wear of military boots.

However, putting aside arguments for ILOD versus, not ILOD, 
if the applicant had been concurrently the subject of a 
medical discharge under AFI 36-3212, which she desires, and 
the administrative discharge, which she received, her case 
would have been referred to the Secretary of the Air Force 
Personnel Council (SAFPC) for a "dual-action" review for 
determination of which of the two basis for discharge was 
appropriate.  In such cases, SAFPC considers both the gravity 
of the administrative and medical issues and seeks to 
determine if there is any causal or mitigating relationship 
between the administrative infraction(s) and the 
disqualifying medical condition.  

The Medical Consultant has not been supplied the specific 
administrative infractions leading to the applicant's 
discharge, but opines that, more likely than not, SAFPC would 
have recommended execution of the approved administrative 
discharge unless evidence showed a significant causal or 
mitigation relationship between the medical condition and the 
basis for administrative discharge.  No evidence is provided 
to indicate existence of a causal or mitigating relationship 
between the applicant's administrative discharge and her 
medical condition.  

With respect to the benefits awarded by the Department of 
Veterans Affairs (DVA), operating under Title 38, United 
States Code, the DVA is authorized to offer compensation for 
any medical condition that it establishes a nexus with 
military service, without regard to its relationship with an 
individual's fitness to serve or the narrative reason for 
discharge.  Thus, while the applicant's initial injury of 
February 2003 occurred during a period of active service, it 
is apparent that its progression and evolution to include 
Complex Regional Pain Syndrome was also found service 
connected; likely based upon the nexus with the ILOD incident 
of March 2003.  The DVA is also authorized to conduct 
periodic reevaluations for the purpose of adjusting the 
disability rating awards as the level of impairment for a 
given medical condition may vary affecting employability over 
the lifetime of the veteran.

The Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant's 
petition to supplant her UOTHC discharge with an Honorable 
medical separation or retirement.

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


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant contends that she was referred to an MEB in 2013, 
which qualifies her for a medical separation.  The medical 
clinic was required to update their system, as well as place her 
on medical hold.  She has provided a copy of the documents to 
show an MEB was requested.  

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit G.


ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

SAFPC recommends upgrading the applicant’s discharge to general 
(under honorable conditions).  

AFI 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air 
National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members, was in effect at 
the time of the applicant’s discharge.  Table 3.1, Rule 49 
states when the reason for discharge is in the interest of 
national security an honorable, general or UOTHC service 
characterization is authorized.  It further shows that SAF 
approval is not required.  However, in accordance with Chapter 
3, Administrative Separation or Discharge of ANG or USAFR 
Enlisted Members, Section 3D Involuntary Separations, paragraph, 
3.24, Secretary of the Air Force (SAF), specifically paragraph 
3.24.1, “Cases where SAF approval is required prior to discharge 
must be referred to the Air Force Personnel Council with a legal 
review attached. These include any case where a characterization 
of UOTHC is recommended” (emphasis added).  Table 3.1 creates an 
ambiguity by stating SAF approval is not required, but paragraph 
3.24.1 makes it clear UOTHC cases must be forwarded to the Air 
Force Personnel Council for approval.

This case was not forwarded to SAFPC for approval of the UOTHC 
service characterization, per AFI 36-3209, paragraph 3.24.1.  
Therefore, MDANG lacked the legal authority to execute a 
discharge with a UOTHC characterization.  The command’s clear 
intent was to give the most negative characterization available. 
Since MDANG never had the authority to execute a UOTHC 
discharge, that in itself is clear reason to upgrade a service 
characterization. In this case, the most negative 
characterization they had authority to give was a General 
discharge.  

In the event the board does not grant a medical 
separation/retirement, the applicant’s service characterization 
should be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions) since 
the executing commander lacked the authority to execute a 
discharge with a UOTHC service characterization.

SAFPC concurs with NGB/SG and AFBCMR Medical Consultant 
regarding disposition of the application for a medical 
discharge.  

The complete SAFPC evaluation is at Exhibit H.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the SAFPC evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 
7 July 2015 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit I).  
As of this date, no response has been received by this office 


ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

MDNG/AG/AIR recommends denial.  The specific reason for the 
applicant’s discharge recommendation was the revocation of her 
security clearance.  The applicant was board entitled but waived 
her right by not responding to the certified letters that were 
mailed to her residence.  Additionally, her pattern of financial 
and personal misconduct including deceit, false statements and 
failure to cooperate with investigators all led to the discharge 
in the interest of national security.  

The MDANG is aware of the applicant’s request and was recently 
advised that a UOTHC designation was not submitted for SAF 
review.  The MDANG followed AFI 36-3209, para 3.22 which 
indicates SAF review is not required; however, they were unaware 
that further guidance requires SAF review of UOTHC.  This error 
should not detract from the merits of the case and the fact that 
the applicant’s discharge should remain characterized as UOTHC.

The applicant’s request should be denied. Should the Board 
restore the applicant to an active status, the MDANG would 
pursue the same action.

The complete MDNG/AG/AIR evaluation is at Exhibit J. 


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant maintains she was undergoing an MEB and has 
previously submitted documentation reflecting an MEB was 
requested.

The applicant also states her unit was aware of her medical 
issues.  She disagrees they had a lack of knowledge and states 
this shows a pattern of them making decisions without following 
Air Force guidelines.  This is not her opinion, but SAFPC has 
stated her discharge should be upgraded.  A SAF review was not 
honored and her medical board was not honored.  

The MDANG was aware of her medical issues as well as her request 
to medically separate.  She did not receive the administrative 
discharge board rights and the certified letters never reached 
her residence.  Furthermore, she explained to the clearance 
investigators in detail about her financial issues and medical 
issues.   

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit L. 


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 with regard to 
the applicant’s request for a medical discharge/retirement.  We 
took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include 
her response to the Air Force advisories, in judging the merits 
of the case; however, we are not persuaded by the evidence 
submitted in this appeal that the applicant is entitled to a 
medical discharge.  As noted by the BCMR Medical Consultant, 
in order for the applicant to receive a medical discharge, 
there must be a medical condition that precluded 
retention:  the evidence of record does not support that 
this is the case.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their 
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 applicant a medical discharge.

4.  Notwithstanding the above determination, we find some relief 
is warranted with regard to the applicant’s service 
characterization.  SAF/MRBP notes the MDANG failed to submit the 
discharge recommendation for a UOTHC service characterization to 
SAFPC in accordance with AFI 36-3209, paragraph 3.24.1 for 
approval.  Therefore, the MDANG did not have the authority to 
execute a discharge with service characterized as under other 
than honorable conditions.  Although we note the applicant 
requests her discharge be upgraded to honorable, we agree with 
the SAFPC recommendation to upgrade her discharge to general.  
Accordingly, we recommend the applicant’s record be corrected as 
indicated below.


THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 
11  February 2014, she was discharged with service characterized 
as general (under honorable conditions). 


The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-01043 in Executive Session on 12 August 2015 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


All members voted to correct the records as recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Feb 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, NGB/SGPA, dated 7 Jul 14.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, NGB/A1PP, dated 14 Jul 14.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, 
                 dated 17 Oct 14.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Nov 14.
      Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 21 Nov 14,  
                  w/atch.
      Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBP, date 30 Jun 15.
      Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Jul 15.
      Exhibit J.  Letter, MDNG/AG/AIR, dated 25 Nov 14.
      Exhibit K.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Jul 15.
      Exhibit L.  Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 29 Jul 15.