RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02709 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His honorable discharge be changed to a medical discharge. 2. His record be corrected to reflect his service in Okinawa. 3. He be awarded the Purple Heart (PH). 4. He receives all other awards earned during his active duty service. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should have received a medical discharge. He was diagnosed with a nervous disorder, seizures and a passive aggressive personality disorder at the time of his discharge. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214 Report of Separation from Active Duty, commander’s “letter of notification,” not dated, psychiatric evaluation, dated 3 February 1976, congressional representative letter regarding his attempt to join the Navy, National Archives (NA) Form 13059, Transmittal of and/or Entitlement to Awards, dated 22 February 1994, Combat Preparedness certificate of training, AF Form 256, Honorable Discharge Certificate, unit certificate of merit, documents pertaining to his Department of Veterans Affairs appeal, and an internet excerpt regarding the current status of a base in Thailand. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: 1. According to copies of documents extracted from his military personnel record, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 31 March 1972. He served as a Security Policeman and was progressively promoted to the grade of Sergeant, (Sgt), E-4, with a date of rank of 1 May 1974. 2. On 13 April 1976, his commander notified the applicant of his intent to discharge him for unsuitability for military service under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program, September 1, 1966, chapter 2, section A, paragraph 2-4b. The reasons for his proposed action were: a. On 26 November 1975, he was cited for apparent loitering on post, however, no disciplinary action was taken. b. On 28 November 1975, he was temporarily disqualified in accordance with, (IAW) AFR 35-99, Human Reliability Program, because of family problems and possible nervous disorders. He was subsequently referred to Social Actions office and the Mental Health Clinic. c. On 17 December 1975, through the Social Actions office referral, he was placed in the Alcohol Rehabilitation Program. d. On 26 January 1976, he received a letter of reprimand for failure to meet a scheduled appointment. e. On 2 February 1976, the Mental Health Clinic evaluated him, and diagnosed his problem as passive-aggressive personality and as being an alcohol abuser (habitual excessive drinking). f. On 12 February 1976, he received a second letter of reprimand for failure to meet a scheduled appointment. g. On 19 February 1976, based upon the mental health evaluation, he was permanently disqualified IAW AFR 35-99. He was further seen in the Mental Health Clinic on 20 February 1976, at the request of the squadron commander, in regards to a possible discharge IAW AFR 39-12. The Mental Health Clinic doctor confirmed the passive-aggressive personality disorder. h. On 18 March 1976, he received an Article 15 for failure to obey a lawful order to report to the Social Actions office.· For this incident, he was reduced to the grade of airman first class. The commander recommended that he be furnished an Honorable Discharge, notwithstanding, the final and type of discharge to be awarded rested with the discharge authority. 3. On 13 April 1976, the applicant acknowledged receipt of his commander’s intent to discharge him and that the recommendation for discharge could result in his being given a discharge certificate less favorable than honorable and that legal council had been made available to assist him. 4. Subsequent to the file being found legally sufficient, the discharge authority approved the recommendation, directed that the applicant be discharged, and be issued a DD Form 256, Honorable Discharge Certificate. The applicant was discharged effective 24 May 1976. He was credited with serving 4 years, 1 month, and 21 days of active duty service, to include, 1 year, and 6 months of foreign service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C, D, E, and F. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this section of the Record of Proceedings. ______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. DPSOR states the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. He provided no facts warranting a change to his reason and authority. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge, to include reason and authority, was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge manual and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The complete AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPAPP recommends denial. DPAPP states that a review of his Master Personnel Records (MPR) and documentation submitted failed to provide any documents that substantiate foreign service time in Okinawa. However, they were able to verify and confirm foreign service, boots on ground, in Thailand, from 25 June 1973 to 23 June 1974. The complete AFPC/DPAPP evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the Purple Heart. DPSID states the applicant contends that due to nervous disorder, seizures, and passive aggressive personality disorder, which he states, caused Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which, he claims, he received during his active duty service; he should be awarded the Purple Heart. However, there is no Special Order, recommendation or signed certificate in the applicant's military personnel record indicating he was recommended or awarded the Purple Heart. There is no evidence the applicant received an injury through enemy contact. A diagnosis of PTSD does not meet the eligibility criteria for award of the Purple Heart. A detailed personal account of how the injury occurred, medical documentation substantiating he received an injury which required medical treatment at the time the injury occurred, and eyewitness statements from individuals who saw the applicant receive the injury were not provided by the applicant. There is no medical documentation in the applicant's military personnel record to substantiate any injuries he may have received were enemy related injuries. 2. The Purple Heart is awarded to members of the United States Armed Forces who have been wounded, killed, or who have died or may hereafter die of wounds received in action against an enemy of the United States or opposing force as a result of an act of any such enemy or opposing armed force, an international terrorist attack or during military operations while serving as a part of a peacekeeping force. A wound for which the award is made must have required treatment, not merely examination, by a medical officer. Additionally, treatment of the wound shall be documented in the service member's medical and/or health record. Award of the Purple Heart may be made for wounds treated by a medical professional other than a medical officer, provided a medical officer includes a statement in the service member's medical record that the extent of the wounds were such that they would have required treatment by a medical officer if one had been available to treat them. 3. The Purple Heart Review Board has the authority (on behalf of the Secretary of the Air Force) to determine a veteran's award of the Purple Heart. Each request is considered based on the policies and criteria in use at the time the veteran was injured, and the determination is dependent on the documentary evidence presented. In order to present a request to the Purple Heart Review Board, the following information is required: a. A detailed personal account of the circumstances surrounding the injury to include specifics as to how the applicant was injured, exact date of injury, unit of assignment, and rank held at the time of injury. b. Medical documentation to substantiate medical treatment was received. If medical documentation is not available, a statement from a medical officer (military or civilian) attesting that an examination revealed that an injury of the type incurred would or should have received medical treatment may be submitted. Statements from individuals not substantiated by either medical or official records will not be considered sufficient evidence of wounds. In this respect, entries on Reports of Separation are not considered official. Concerning service-related conditions noted by the Veterans Administration, the injury must have been a direct result of the enemy and meet the Purple Heart criteria. Unfortunately, not all service- connected conditions, as determined by the Veterans Administration, meet the criteria for the award. c. If possible, an eyewitness account from an individual who saw the applicant injured and can attest to the circumstances surrounding the applicant's personal account. 4. Based on a thorough review of the applicant's official military personnel record, they were able to determine that the below Air Force Medals and/or Ribbons should have been awarded during the applicant's service from 31 March 1972 to 24 May 1976, and were not reflected in his records. Upon final board decision, administrative correction of the applicant's official military personnel record will be completed by AFPC/DPSOR: a. Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with Valor and one Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster (AFO UA w/V & BOLC). b. Air Force Longevity Service Award (AFLSA). c. Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm (RVNGC w/P). After a thorough review of the applicant's official military personnel record, they were unable to verify award of the Purple Heart Medal. The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit E. 1. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant opines that the applicant has not met the burden of proof of error or injustice to warrant the desired change of record. The Medical Consultant is aware of recent concerns of Vietnam era veterans who were discharged for misconduct and/or personality disorders, who may have suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Although the applicant reportedly served in an area where his life was under threat one or more times, the preponderance of evidence does not reflect these exposures resulted in a mental disorder that justified processing as a compensable disability at the time of his release from military service; nor were proven the cause of his administrative infractions. 2. The Medical Consultant acknowledges that “20/20 hindsight” offers any future reviewer not present at the time of a given event the advantage of collectively utilizing all previous facts, disclosures, and clinical expressions and matching those against any current disclosures (reported symptoms) or new clinical expressions, in sometimes reaching a different diagnostic disposition. However, any “new” or different conclusion reached under these circumstances, does not automatically invalidate the historical accuracy of findings, facts, and conclusions reached at the time of initial occurrence, e.g., the finding by a credentialed mental health provider that the applicant did not have a medical condition warranting processing under the Disability Evaluation System at the time of separation in 1976 versus the post-service award of compensation for PTSD by the Social Security Administration (SSA) administrative law judge in 1997; some 20 years post- service. 3. It should be noted that conclusions reached were the result of interviews, observations, and objective testing prior to the applicant's discharge in 1976 and that he received an independent psychiatric reassessment reaching similar diagnostic conclusions, which resulted in his rejection from joining the Navy in 1980. Thus, even though the applicant may have presented proof of exposures to hostile or life-threatening events during one period of service, or may have reported symptoms consistent with a de novo post-service diagnosis of PTSD, does not prove this diagnosis was either present (regardless of nomenclature), that is was unfitting, nor that it had a direct causal relationship with the pattern of behavior that resulted in his separation. 4. The applicant and the Board are reminded that, operating under Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), the Military Department can by law only offer compensation for the illness or injury that causes career termination; and then only to the degree of impairment present the “snap-shot” time of final military disposition. Whereas, operating under a different set of laws (Title 38, U.S.C.), with a different purpose, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition for which a nexus with military service has been established, without regard to its proven impact upon a member's retainability, fitness to serve, narrative reason for release from military service, or the intervening period since discharge. Moreover, the DVA is empowered to conduct periodic evaluations for the purpose of adjusting (increase or decrease) the disability rating as the level of impairment emanating from a given medical condition may vary (improve or worsen) over the lifetime of the veteran. The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force and the BCMR Medical Consultant evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 4 April 2014 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit G). To date, a response has not been received. 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, other than the applicant’s own assertions, he has provided no evidence that would persuade us that the characterization of his discharge is in error and not in accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge manual. Therefore, we agree with the recommendation of 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. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence in the applicant’s record to verify that he meets the criterion for, or was recommended for, award of the Purple Heart. Therefore, in the absence of such evidence, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this portion of the application and relief beyond that already granted administratively is not warranted. Therefore, we find no basis to favorably consider this application. 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 issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ 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 this application in Executive Session on 13 May 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-02709 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149 dated 28 May 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Record. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dtd 15 September 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPAPP, dtd 29 October 2013. Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dtd 2 January 2014. Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR Med Consultant, dtd 20 March 2014. Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dtd 4 April 2014.