RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01343 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be changed to a medical discharge. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She became mentally disabled while on active duty. She was accused of misbehavior that she had no control over. She was admitted twice into a behavioral unit and her discharge papers were served to her while she was in a mental institution. The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rated her 100 percent disabled for mental illness. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 7 July 2009, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 25 October 2011, she was notified by her commander that he was recommending she be discharged for misconduct, minor disciplinary infractions In Accordance With (IAW) AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.49. The specific reasons for the recommendation include a Letter of Counseling (LOC) and Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failure to go to her place of duty and making a false official statement, LOC for failure to go a medical appointment and Article 15 for being absent from duty without authority, dereliction in the performance of duties in that she failed to return phone calls and making a false official statement. On 25 October 2011, the applicant acknowledged the discharge recommendation, her right to consult counsel and submit statements in her own behalf. On 2 November 2011, the discharge authority approved the recommendation that she be discharged without probation and rehabilitation. On 4 November 2011, the applicant was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions) with a narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct (minor infractions).” AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The applicant has not met the burden of proof of error or injustice that warrants the desired change of the record; however, the Board may consider changing her reason for discharge to “Secretarial Authority” based solely upon clemency. Addressing the applicant’s desire for a medical separation, the military Disability Evaluation System (DES), established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law, under 10 U.S.C. only offer compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries which specifically rendered a member unfit for continued active service and were the cause for career termination; and then only for the degree of impairment present at the time of separation and not based on future occurrences. Thus, in order for the applicant to be considered for a medical discharge, she must have had an illness or injury that resulted in a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and unfit finding by a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). In the case under review, it was the applicant’s disciplinary infractions that caused the termination of her career. Her medical condition resulted from the disciplinary actions taken against her, as noted in the Mental Health (MH) summaries referring to her reduction in rank. If the applicant was concurrently the subject of an approved medical discharge and an involuntary administrative discharge, her case would be adjudicated by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC). The charge of SAFPC then would be to determine which basis for discharge warranted execution, administrative versus medical. In conducting such a review, SAFPC would search for any causal or mitigating relationship between the disciplinary infractions and the medical condition. In the case under review, the Medical Consultant found no such causal or mitigating relationship between the applicant’s infractions and the MH disorder that followed the disciplinary actions. Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) resulted from the punitive actions taken. Consequently, more likely than not, SAFPC would have recommended execution of the approved administrative discharge. A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s 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 November 2014 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant recommends denial. The materials supplied for this case reveal an airman with several minor disciplinary infractions who experienced depressive symptoms as a result of awareness that her career was likely coming to an end. The Clinical Psychology Consultant found no nexus between her mental disorder and the behaviors leading to her discharge, nor did her condition require DES processing. Thus, no error or injustice was found. A complete copy of the BCMR Psychology Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 18 June 2015 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 timely filed. 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, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the BCMR Medical and Clinical Psychology Consultants and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden of proof that she has been the victim of an error or injustice. In the interest of justice, we considered changing her narrative reason for separation based on clemency; however, after considering her overall record of service, the infractions which led to her administrative separation, and the short amount of time that has elapsed since her discharge in October 2011, we are not persuaded that a change to the narrative reason on this basis is warranted. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in 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 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-2014-01343 in Executive Session on 8 July 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 March 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 4 November 2014. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 November 2014. Exhibit E. Memorandum, BCMR Psychology Consultant, dated 12 June 2015. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 June 2015.