RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01635

					COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge should be changed in accordance with AFI 36-3212 
to receive a medical discharge.  This would allow him to have an 
honorable discharge.  He provided various medical documents to 
show he was injured in the line of duty (LOD).  He felt his 
discharge was influenced and his DD Form 214 is inaccurate.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 
23 August 2005.

On 23 August 2006, the applicant was referred to the Informal 
Physical Disability Evaluation Board (IPEB) for right knee pain.  
The IPED recommended discharge with severance pay and a 
disability rating of zero percent.  Concurrently, the applicant 
was being processed for an administrative discharge.  Per AFI 
36-3212, Chapter 5.4; the case would be processed as a dual 
action case and forwarded to the Secretary of the Air Force 
Personnel Counsel (SAFPC) for finalization.    

On 30 August 2006, AFPC/DPPD, on behalf of the Secretary of the 
Air Force, directed that the member be separated from active 
service for physical disability with entitlement to severance 
pay.

On 7 September 2006, the applicant was notified by his commander 
of his intent to recommend his discharge for Minor Disciplinary 
Infractions, under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, 
Administrative Separation of Airmen, Paragraph 5.49.  The 
reasons for this action included the following:

	a.  He received an Article 15, dated 23 March 2006, for 
failure to refrain from contributing alcohol to someone who was 
under the legal drinking age of 21.   

	b.  On 11 January 2006, he received a Letter of Counseling 
(LOC) for failure to return to the base prior to Phase III 
curfew. 

	c.  On 18 January 2006, he received a Letter of Reprimand 
(LOR) for hanging from the rafters of Huntman B-10 in an 
inebriated state, creating a safety hazard.

On 7 September 2006, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
action and waived his right to consult with counsel or submit 
statements on his behalf.

On 13 September 2006, the action was found to be legally 
sufficient and the discharge authority concurred with the 
commander’s recommendation and directed the applicant’s general 
(under honorable conditions) discharge.  

On 3 November 2006, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel 
Council (SAFPC), on behalf of the Secretary of the Air Force, 
directed that the applicant’s administrative discharge for minor 
disciplinary actions be executed, thus terminating the 
processing of the applicant’s disability discharge.  

On 22 November 2006, the applicant was furnished a general  
(under honorable conditions) discharge, and was credited with 
1 year, 2 months, and 29 days of active service.  

On 28 April 2014, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 
30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this 
office (Exhibit C).

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibilities (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits D 
and E.    


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPD/DPSOR recommends denial indicting the applicant failed to 
submit a timely application.  It has been almost eight years 
since the events in question and the discharge, to include the 
separation program designator (SPD) code, narrative reason for 
separation, and character of service was consistent with the 
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge 
instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge 
authority.  The applicant was counseled and given several 
opportunities to adhere to military standards.  The negative 
aspects of his conduct and performance of duty outweighed the 
positive aspects of his military record.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPFD recommends denial indicating the preponderance of the 
evidence indicates that no error or injustice occurred during 
the disability process or the rating applied at the time of the 
board.  The applicant met the IPEB on 23 August 2006 for right 
knee pain.  The IPEB recommended discharge with severance pay 
with a disability rating of zero percent.  The applicant 
concurred with the medical recommendation.  AFPC/DPFD was 
notified applicant was being processed for an administrative 
discharge.  In accordance with AFI 36-3212, when a case is being 
processed for with a final recommendation of unfit and 
administrative action is pending, it is processed as a dual 
action and forwarded to SAFPC for finalization.  The SAFPC memo, 
dated 3 November 2006, directed applicant be discharged by 
execution of the approved the applicant’s administrative 
discharge under AFI 36-3208 and terminated the disability 
discharge action under the provisions of AFI 36-3212.    

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit E.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 30 September 2014 for review and comment within 
30 days (Exhibit F).  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 opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility (OPR) and adopt their 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.


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-2014-01635 in Executive Session on 2 December 2014, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Apr 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Apr 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 2 May 14.
	Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPFD, dated 29 May 14. 
Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Sep 14.