AIR F ~ R C E  BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

.  ; 9 6  '1998 

' -  

' 1  

1 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

-- 

-I_-- 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03513 

1 4  : -: ,  1  rr/ 

COUNSEL:  None 

HEARING DESIRED: Yes 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
His  general  discharge be  changed to  a medical  discharge and  an 
appropriate disability rating. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

The Judiciary Area Defense Counsel's  (JADC) three-page report was 
never added to his records. 

In  support  of  the  appeal,  applicant  submits  a  three-page  JADC 
report, dated 3 November 1988. 

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

I 

* 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from 
the  applicant's  military  records,  are  contained  in  the  brief 
prepared by the Air Force Discharge Review Board  (AFDRB) (Exhibit 
B) and the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air 
Force.  Accordingly, there is no need  to  recite  these  facts in 
this Record of Proceedings. 

The AFDRB denied applicant's  request for upgrade of discharge to 
honorable and change of reason for discharge on 5 November 1993. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR,  reviewed  this  application 
and  states  that  while  the  applicant's  PTSD  was  given 
consideration in his discharge processing,  it was  felt, perhaps 
erroneously,  that  his  actions  which  led  to  the  nonjudicial 
punishments  departed  significantly  from  actions  of  others  who 
experienced the same traumatic events.  This may well be expected 

97-03513 

given  the  fact  it  is  not  possible  to  extrapolate  reactions  to 
such stressors of any given individual to cover how everyone else 
should or would react in the same situation.  To have done so in 
this  case  seems  unjust.  This  case  was  previously  heard  as  a 
AFDRB  case  on  29  October  1993,  some  4%  years  after  the 
applicant's  discharge.  A  review  of  this  hearing  shows  that  a 
dissenting  vote  was  cast  in  favor  of  upgrade  to  honorable, 
indicating  some  concern,  perhaps,  for  the  characterization of 
discharge the applicant received.  Prior to the Flugtag disaster, 
the  applicant  had  performed  in  an  extraordinarily  exemplary 
manner  as reflected in his performance  report dated 12 'February 
1988.  His  ability  as  an  entry  control  specialist was  highly 
praised, and yet, his next report, dated 23 October 1988, found 
him  severely deficient  and  commented on  actions during  a local 
exercise  in  April  (2 months  after  his  exceptional  rating)  as 
being  irresponsible. 
Although  the  applicant  did  not  submit 
comments in reply to this October referral report, the accuracy 
of the latter comments must be suspect.  Was the unit looking for 
ways  to pad  the case against him in their effort to effect his 
discharge?  Given the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder 
(PTSD)  rendered  within  two  weeks  of  the  air  show  disaster 
(Ramstein Flugtag Disaster), and considering all aspects of this 
record  and  resolving  all  reasonable  doubt  in  favor  of  the 
individual, an inequity appears to have occurred in the handling 
of this case.  While there is no medical or psychiatric condition 
sufficient  to  consider  a  medical  discharge,  it  is  recommended 
that upgrade of this discharge to honorable be accomplished.  The 
BCMR  Medical  Consultant  is  of  the  opinion  that  this  discbrge 
should be upgraded to honorable by  Secretarial Authority IAW AFI 
36-3208, that the Separation Program Designator should be changed 
to "KFF"  and that the reentry code should be  changed to "2C"  to 
reflect the honorable  characterization of the discharge.  While 
not condoning the applicant's  actions that led to his discharge, 
* h e  feels that mitigation secondary to his psychiatric diagnosis 
is in order. 

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 

The Chief, Physical Disability Division, AFPC/DPPD, also reviewed 
this application and  states that they verify  that the applicant 
was never referred to or considered by  the Air  Force Disability 
amination  dated 
Evaluation  System. 
A  report  of 
31 October  1988,  conducted  by  the 
linic,  does  not 
reflect  any  outstanding  medical  conditions  at  that  time  and 
qualifies  the  member  for worldwide  duty.  They  agree  with  the 
Medical  Consultant's  comments  and  recommendation  to  disapprove 
member's  request  to  receive  a  disability  discharge. 
The 
applicant has not submitted any material or documentation to show 
that  he  was  unfit  due  to  a  physical  disability  under  the 
provisions  of  Title  10, USC,  at  the  time  of his  administrative 
discharge.  They recommend denial of the applicant's  request. 
A complete copy  of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. 

2 

97-03513 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  applicant's  spouse  reviewed  the  Air  Force  evaluations  and 
states  they  both  feel  that  there  is  sufficient  evidence  to 
substantiate a medical discharge.  The information appears quite 
clear and concise, leading them to believe that the only fair and 
just discharge  in this  case would,  in  fact, be  a medical  one. 
The diagnosis of PTSD was made on 6 September 1988 and isklearly 
the  cause  of  the  confusion  leading  up  to  the  two  Article  15 
incidents. 
The  enclosed  recent  paperwork  from  the  Dorn  VA 
Psychiatric Hospital  clearly demonstrates the  ongoing  struggles 
applicant deals with due  to his  PTSD.  He  continues to require 
treatment  with  medications  and  counseling  as  he  probably  will 
indefinitely.  Her husband's  life has been permanently affected 
in j u s t   about every way possible, and the change in his discharge 
would  be  a  small  acknowledgment  that  would  mean  more  than  you 
know. 

Applicant's  spouse's  complete  response,  with  attachments,  is 
attached at Exhibit E. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
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  probable  error  or  injustice 
warranting  changing  his  administrative  discharge  to  a  medical 
discharge.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and 
the  JADC  three-page  statement  submitted  by  the  applicant,  it 
appears that the  symptoms he  exhibited associated with  PTSD had 
resolved and  he  was worldwide  qualified  for active duty  at  the 
time of his  discharge.  In this regard, the Board notes at the 
time of his  separation history  and physical examination done on 
31 October  1988,  the  applicant  stated his  health  was:  "I'm  in 
Great Shape!  No Stress!"  Therefore, in the absence of evidence 
to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to  recommend 
granting the relief sought in this application. 

4.  Notwithstanding the above determination, the Board notes that 
the BCMR Medical Consultant recommends changing the discharge to 
honorable  by  Secretarial  Authority  IAW  AFI  36-3208,  the 
Separation Program  Designator be  changed  to  "KFF"  and  that  the 
reentry  code  be  changed  to  "2C" 
to  reflect  the  honorable 
characterization of the discharge.  Based on applicant's  overall 
record of performance and in view of the comments submitted from 

3 

the  Medical  Consultant,  we  recommend  applicant's  records  be 
corrected to the extent indicated below. 

97- 03513 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 
The pertinent military records of the Department of  the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT, be  corrected to show that on 17 February 
1989,  he  was  discharged  under  the  provisions  of  A F I   36- 3208, 
Secretarial Authority, and issued a reenlistment eligibility code 
of "2C"  and a Separation Program Designator of "KFF." 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive  Session on  10 June  1998,  under  the provisions  of A F I  
36- 2603: 

Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair 
Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Member 
Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Member 
Ms. Gloria J. Williams, Examiner  (without vote) 

A  I  members voted  to correct the  recor'ds, as  recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149,  dated 3 1  Jan 98,  w/atchs. 
-- 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 9  Jan 98. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 3  Feb 98. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 Feb 98. 
Exhibit F.  Spouse's  Response, dated 4 Feb 98,  w/atchs. 

MARTHA musf 
Panel Chair 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

JUN 2 6 1998 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 97-03513 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF 

Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction 
of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code,(70A 
Stat 116), it is directed that: 

records of the Department of the Air Force relatin 
e corrected to show that on 17 February 1989, he 
3 6-3208, Secretarial Authority, and issued a reenlistment eligibility 

code of “2C” and a Separation Program Designator of “KFF.” 

I/  Director 

Air Force Review Boards Agency