b . 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

irdy  1 3  :5;P 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-01321 
COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

- 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His  administrative  discharge  be  changed  to  a  disability 
discharge. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

He was discharged while he was hospitalized and he was diagnosed 
as having a personality disorder when what he really had was Post 
Traumatic  Stress  Disorder  as  evidenced  by  a  Department  of 
Veterans  Affairs  (DVA) rating of  11 December  1996.  Applicant 
states that  the  diagnosis also conflicts with  at  least a half- 
dozen more behavior professionals. 

Applicant's submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Applicant  enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 29  December 1994 
for a period of four (4) years in the grade of airman basic. 
Available  records  reflect  that  while  serving  in  the  grade  of 
airman,  applicant  met  a  Medical  Evaluation  Board  (MEB)  on 
22 November  1995,  after  psychiatric  evaluation  at  his  home 
station at Tinker Air Force Base  (AFB) ,  Oklahoma  (OK) rendered a 
diagnosis  of  Dissociative  Amnesia. 
The  MEB  recommended  the 
applicant  be  referred  to an  Informal  Physical Evaluation Board 
(IPEB).  The  IPEB  convened  on  10 December  1995  and  found  the 
diagnosis  to  be  "Dissociative  Amnesia. 
Mild  Social  and 
Industrial Impairment."  The recommended disposition of the IPEB 
was discharge with severance pay with a compensable rating of  10 
percent. 
Applicant  was  subsequently  hospitalized  at  Sheppard  AFB  from 
2 8   December  1995  to  15 January  1996  where  diagnoses  of 
dissociative  amnesia, post-traumatic  stress  disorder  and  panic 
disorder were  made.  Applicant  was  further hospitalized on two 
occasions  at  Wilford  Hall  Medical  Center  (WHMC), Texas.  The 

second hospitalization was  from 22  February to  6  March ,1996 in 
anticipation of a second MEB.  The second hospitalization did not 
affirm the previous  diagnoses and he  was  found only  to  have  a 
personality disorder which did not warrant MEB consideration.  He 
was returned to his home station to await disposition. 
On 2 April 1996, applicant was notified by his commander that he 
(commander) was recommending applicant's discharge from the U. S. 
Air  Force  for  Misconduct  and  Involuntary  Convenience  of  the 
Government. 
The  authority  for  this  action  is  AFI  36-3208, 
paragraph  5.50.2, Misconduct, Conduct  Prejudicial to Good Order 
and Discipline, and paragraph 5.11.1, Personality Disorders.  The 
commander  recommend  applicant's  service  be  characterized  as 
general.  The reasons were: 
(1)  On  14  February  1996,  applicant  was  given  directions  to 
settle  financial matters with  his  landlord  in  order  to  obtain 
access  to  his  living  quarters, which  had  been  locked for non- 
payment of rents.  Applicant was directly told to report problems 
of his compliance with conditions to be met that would allow him 
access to his quarters.  He did not comply with this request. 
( 2 )   On or about 15 February 1996  applicant  failed to report to 
duty at the prescribed time of 0730 hours and failed to report to 
his supervisor his whereabouts. 
(3)  On  14  February  1996,  applicant  reported  to  a  Tinker AFB 
Chaplain and  the  Chaplain then took  applicant  to  the emergency 
room  at  Tinker  AFB  hospital. 
Applicant  was  transferred  to 
Wilford  Hall  Medical  Center  and  while  in  the  patient  waiting 
room, applicant failed to obey the directions 0n.a prescription 
given to him and he ingested the entire bottle of the prescribed 
drug,  Klonipin.  Applicant  also  feigned  illness  and  a  mental 
lapse.  Applicant  did  not  receive any disciplinary actions  for 
the  offenses  mentioned  above  because  he  was  admitted  to  the 
Hospital for evaluation.  The Chief, Behavioral Medicine, Tinker 
AFB  Hospital, stated  in her  letter, dated  2 2   March  1996,  that 
applicant was clearly not suited for further military service and 
recommended  separation.  Probation  and  rehabilitation  was  not 
recommended.  The prognosis for a change in applicant's attitude 
was almost non-existent. 
On 19 April  1996,  the Chief, General Law Division, reviewed the 
recommendation  for  discharge  and  found  it  legally  sufficient. 
Even  though  the  commander had  initially recommended  a  general 
discharge,  after  evaluating  the  circumstances  of  the  case, he 
believes that  the applicant should be discharged as a result of 
Mental  Disorders only  and  that  the misconduct behavior was  the 
result  of  the  mental  disorders.  Therefore, the  commander now 
recommends an honorable discharge. 
On  23  April  1996,  the  Discharge  Authority  directed  that  the 
applicant be discharged from the U. S. Air Force for Conditions 

2 

That  Interfere  With  Military  Service,  Mental  Disorders  with 
service characterized as honorable. 
Applicant  was  honorably  discharged  on  24 April  1996  under  the 
provisions of AFI 36-3208  (Personality Disorder) in the grade of 
airman.  He served 1 year, 3 months and 26 days of active duty. 

Applicant  filed a claim with the Department of Veterans Affairs 
(DVA) on 20  June  1996  and  was  awarded  a  30  percent  disability 
compensation for Dissociative and Panic Disorders; Post Traumatic 
Stress  Disorder. 
On  13  May  1997,  the  DVA  increased  the 
disability  compensation  to  100  percent  after  evaluation  of 
applicant's nervous  disorder  and  stated  that  since  there  is  a 
likelihood  of  improvement,  the  assigned  evaluation  is  not 
considered  permanent  and  is  subject  to  a  future  review 
examination. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Council,  states  that 

The  Chief  Medical  Consultant,  AFBCMR,  Medical  Advisor  SAF 
applicant s  last 
Personnel 
hospitalization  at  Wilford  Hall  Medical  Center  (WHMC) between 
February and March 1996, did not affirm the previous diagnoses of 
dissociative  amnesia, post-traumatic  stress disorder, and panic 
disorder and he was found only to have a personality disorder, a 
condition that does not warrant MEB  consideration.  This change 
in his diagnosis is his basis of contention.  He was returned to 
his home  station to await  disposition.  This non-ratable, non- 
compensable diagnosis was then used as a mitigating condition f o r  
his work-related problems and he was administratively discharged. 

the 

The apparent discrepancy in the diagnoses rendered the applicant 
were definitively finalized in the last hospitalization at WHMC 
in  Feb-Mar  1996.  Extensive  psychological  testing  and  lengthy 
observation resulted  in the  conclusion that  he  suffered  from  a 
personality disorder, and this was properly used  in considering 
the character of discharge.  This case was properly evaluated by 
the  evidence  of  record  and  there  is  no  evidence  of  error  or 
irregularity  in  the  processing  of  the  case. 
Action  and 
disposition  are  proper  and  reflect  compliance  with  Air  Force 
directives which implement the law.  The Medical Consultant is of 
the opinion that no change in the records is warranted and  the 
application should be denied. 
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 
The  Chief,  USAF  Physical  Disability  Division,  HQ  AFPC/DPPD, 
states that the medical aspects of this case are fully explained 
by  the  Medical  Consultant  and  HQ  AFPC/DPPD  agrees  with  that 
evaluation.  The  Air  Force  and  DVA  disability  systems operate 
under separate laws.  To receive compensation from the Air Force, 
under Title  10, U.S.C., each medical  condition must, in and  of 

3 

itself, render the member unfit for duty.  Under the DVA system, 
Title 3 8 ,   U.S.C., the law provides  for compensation for members 
based  on  the  average  impairment  in  earning  capacity  resulting 
from all service connected diseases and/or injuries. 

Additionally)  the  disability provisions  under  Title  10  require 
the military services to rate disabilities based on their current 
condition, at the time of disability processing.  Under Title 38, 
the DVA may rate based upon future employability, plus the fact 
that  the DVA may  perform  evaluations at  a  later point  in  time 
which  often results  in different  ratings by  the  two  agencies. 
They recommend denial of applicant's request. 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
Copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the 
applicant on 10 November 1997 for review and response within 30 
days.  As  of  this date, no  response has been  received by  this 
office. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 

2.  The application was timely filed. 
3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After 
a  thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record  and  applicant I  s 
submission, the majority of  the Board  is not persuaded that his 
administrative  discharge  should  be  changed  to  a  disability 
discharge.  His  contentions are duly noted; however, the Board 
majority does not find these uncorroborated assertions, in and by 
themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override  the  rationale 
provided by the Air Force.  The majority of  the Board therefore 
agrees with the recommendations of  the Air Force and adopts the 
rationale  expressed  as  the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the 
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered 
either  an  error  or  an  injustice. 
Therefore,  we  find  no 
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought. 

I 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: 
A majority of the panel  finds insufficient evidence of  error or 
injustice and recommends the application be denied. 

The following members of t h e   Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 4 August  1998, under the provisions of AFI 
3 6 - 2 6 0 3 .  

Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair 
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member 
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member 

By  a  majority  vote,  the  Board  recommended  denial  of  the 
Ms.  Maust  voted  to  grant  applicant's 
app icantls  request. 
request  to  change his  administrative discharge  to a disability 
discharge but  does not  wish  to  submit a  minority  report.  The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form  149, dated 2 1  Jan 97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 26 Aug 97. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 23 Oct 97. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 Nov 97. 

~ R T H A  MAUST/ 
Panel Chair 

5