RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00753 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable; his reason for separation be changed to Medical, Disability, or convenience of the Government; eliminate his reduction in grade imposed by nonjudicial punishment on 11 February 1994; and his record be corrected to reflect he served to the end of his term of service. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Many issues directly related to his unjust separation were associated with his disabling post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), for which there was no screening or encouragement from his command to seek treatment. Under current standards this would be mandated. His actions, which were deemed as misconduct by his command and which occurred over a course of a few weeks, do not outweigh his dedicated duty at his deployed locations and his home station. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States; a Post-Deployment Health Reassessment (PDHRA) Procedures for Active Duty Airmen memorandum; Brief of Discharged Veteran; Center for Health Care Services documentation; and two letters of support. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 8 June 1992, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an Air Transportation apprentice. He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3) effective 11 February 1994. Between 21 January 1994 and 1 March 1994, the applicant received one Letter of Reprimand (LOR), two Letters of Counseling (LOCs), two Article 15 punishments, and had his driving privileges on base revoked. On 18 April 1994, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to discharge him from the Air Force for a “Pattern of Misconduct,” under the authority of Air Force regulation 39-10, paragraph 5-47b, with either an honorable or general characterization of service. The applicant acknowledged his commander’s intent, consulted counsel, and submitted a statement in his own behalf. On 3 May 1994, the Acting Staff Judge Advocate found the case to be legally sufficient and recommended a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation (P&R). On 5 May 1994, the discharge authority approved the recommended discharge and ordered the applicant be discharged without P&R, with a general discharge certificate. The applicant was discharged effective 9 May 1994, in the grade of airman (E-2) with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He served 1 year, 11 months, and 2 days on active duty. A Department for Veteran Affairs (DVA) Rating Decision, dated 21 October 2008, reflects the applicant has been awarded service connection for PTSD with a 70 percent disability rating. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. JAJM states the applicant has not shown a clear error or injustice with regard to either of the nonjudicial punishment actions or his administrative discharge. A review of both nonjudicial punishment actions show the applicant was given all of the rights to which he was entitled throughout the course of the actions. In both cases, he was given the right to demand court-martial instead of having his commander decide his guilt or innocence and potential punishment. In both cases, he waived his right to court-martial. In both cases, he was given the opportunity to present information to the commander for consideration in the commander’s decision. In both cases, the applicant was given an opportunity to appeal the commander’s decision. In both cases, the nonjudicial punishment action was reviewed and found to be legally sufficient. The commander was in the best position to carefully weigh all of the evidence, make informed findings of fact, and arrive at a suitable punishment; therefore, the nonjudicial punishment actions were processed appropriately. The punishments were within prescribed limits and appropriate for the offenses committed. Although a discharge and the characterization of an administrative discharge are not typically referred to as punishments, neither the discharge nor the characterization should be deemed as excessive. The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical Consultant states there is no evidence that the applicant had a duty impairing physical or mental condition following his deployment, other than alcohol dependence that interfered with his ability to perform military service. However, there is significant evidence the applicant’s alcohol usage preceded his deployment exposures by several years. Even though alcohol rehabilitation may not be looked upon as treatment for a traditional mental disorder, the medical inquiries and treatment efforts are conducted by trained mental health providers (psychologists and psychiatrists) giving the applicant many opportunities, both while an outpatient and inpatient, to disclose any underlying troubling thoughts, e.g., nightmares, flashbacks, etc., that could be attributed to his alcohol dependence and subsequent misconduct. Although his physicians retrospectively have referred the applicant’s service in Somalia as establishing a nexus with his current diagnosis; (as did the DVA in granting him service-connection), these factors do not validate the implicit premise the applicant’s alcohol dependence and resultant misconduct were mistaken manifestations of an undiagnosed PTSD. More importantly, although the applicant reported a history of frequent exposure to mortar and gunfire near his quarters, at no point during any of the interviews conducted by military mental health officials, is there documentation of a functional impairment attributed to PTSD, Depressive Disorder, Panic Disorder, or Anxiety Disorder resulting from such exposures. It is the BCMR Medical Consultant’s opinion that although the DVA has retroactively established a nexus between the applicant’s PTSD and events during his military service, there is no evidence that PTSD should have been the basis for separation; particularly in the context of the applicant’s reported alcohol remission, the many years he had been reportedly drinking prior to deployment, and the reasons he provided for consuming alcohol, e.g., unhappy with career field, to have fun, and to relieve stress. The Air Force conducted its procedures properly and the applicant’s commander had shown an interest in his well-being by assuring he received proper treatment of his alcohol dependence. The applicant has not met the burden of proof that an error or injustice has taken place that warrants a change in his narrative reason for discharge or his service characterization. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 9 October 2009 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). As of this date, this office has received no response. ________________________________________________________________ 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 an 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 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. 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2009-00753 in Executive Session on 15 June 2010, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2009-00753: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Mar 09, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 19 Aug 09. Exhibit D. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 8 Oct 09. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Oct 09. Panel Chair