RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01439
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 13 NOVEMBER 2007
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to reflect he received a medical discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He should have received a medical discharge rather than a general (under
honorable conditions) discharge.
In support of his application, applicant submitted a personal statement and
a Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rating decision.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on 12 July 1956, as
an basic airman (AB) for a period of four years.
On 4 December 1959, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was
recommending him for discharge from the Air Force (AF) under the provisions
of Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-16 for substandard conduct and character
and behavior disorder. The specific reasons for the discharge action are:
a. On 17 October 1959, the applicant was convicted by Special
Court-Martial for being absent without leave (AWOL).
b. On 13 November 1959, the applicant underwent a command directed
psychiatric evaluation and was diagnosed with asocial (amoral) personality
(character and behavior disorder).
On 28 December 1959 an evaluation officer was appointed to review the
applicant’s case. The evaluation officer conducted an interview with the
applicant, reviewed the applicant’s records and comments by his commander,
and recommended the applicant be discharged from the Air Force due to
unsuitability with a general discharge.
On 11 January 1960, the discharge authority directed the applicant be
discharged with a general discharge.
Applicant was discharged on 14 January 1960, in the grade of airman basic.
He served a total of 3 years, 2 months and 15 days of active service.
The applicant filed a claim in July 2005 with the Department of Veterans
Affairs (DVA) for hearing loss and tinnitus. On 27 September 2005, the DVA
granted the applicant a service connected disability rating of 40 percent.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of investigation,
Washington, D.C., indicated on the basis of the data furnished they were
unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C.)
____________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records
is warranted. The applicant was administratively separated for
unsuitability after conviction by special court-martial for being AWOL and
a mental health evaluation diagnosing a character and behavior disorder.
The applicant’s discharge and characterization of service was in accordance
with the Air Force policies and procedures. The applicant was diagnosed
with a mild to moderate hearing loss at the time of his separation
examination that did not interfere with the performance of his duties and
was not disqualified for continued military service.
The military service disability systems, operating under Title 10, and the
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) disability system, operating under
Title 38, are complementary systems not intended to be duplicative.
Operating under different laws with a different purpose, independent
decisions/determinations made by the DOD under Title 10 and the DVA under
Title 38 are not determinative or binding on decisions made by the other.
By law, payment of DVA disability compensation and military pay is
prohibited.
BCMR Medical Consultant's complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states he was never
given any disciplinary action for bad checks, disturbing the peace,
disorderly conduct, or conduct unbecoming an airman. He was tried for
being AWOL, but there were extenuating circumstances. His brother was
killed in an automobile accident while he was AWOL. He attempted to turn
himself in but an air policeman he talked with recommended he stay AWOL
until after the funeral as it could not be guaranteed that he would be
released from custody to attend the funeral.
In regards to the mental health evaluation, he spent a total of 10 minutes
with a psychiatrist and there is no way the psychiatrist could have made an
accurate evaluation of his mental health in that short of a period of time.
He disagrees with the psychiatrist’s evaluation that he had a character
and behavior disorder stating that he was amoral. Since his discharge, he
was married to the same woman for 36 years, giving her total care for the
last five years of her life as she was diabetic and had both of her legs
amputated, was blind, kidney failure, liver failure, congestive heart
failure and breathing disorder. If he was amoral as that doctor said he is
sure that he would not have taken care of his wife like he did (Exhibit F).
_________________________________________________________________
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. The applicant is requesting his
records be corrected to reflect he received a medical discharge due to
hearing loss. The applicant was involuntarily separated for unsuitability
and a mental health diagnosis of character and behavior disorder.
Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we agree with the opinion
and recommendation of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale
as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim
of an error or injustice. The applicant’s character and behavior disorder
was the primary basis for his discharge but the character of service was
determined by his misconduct. The applicant’s medical condition was not of
the severity to warrant evaluation under the disability evaluation system.
Nor, did his medical condition prevent him from performing the duties of
his rank, experience or prevented assignment to military duties.
Furthermore, at the time of the applicant’s separation examination it was
determined he had a mild hearing loss; however, a review of his medical
records did not show any complaints of hearing loss that interfered with
the performance of his duties. Therefore, we believe the processing of the
discharge and the characterization of the discharge were appropriate and
accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy.
4. Former servicemembers are authorized treatment from DVA under the
provisions of Title 38, USC. Title 38, USC allows the DVA to provide
compensation for servicemembers who incur a service-connected medical
condition while on active duty and to increase or decrease the disability
rating based on the seriousness of medical condition throughout the former
servicemember’s life span. We note the applicant currently has a combined
DVA disability rating of 40 percent and is appropriately receiving care and
compensation from the DVA. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling 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-2006-
01439 in Executive Session on 18 July 2007 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, 27 Apr 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Negative Reply.
Exhibit D. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 30 Mar 07.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Apr 06.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Apr 07.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02430
The BCMR Medical Consultant does not conclude that the evidence in the service medical records support change of records to show disability discharge for anxiety disorder and notes that the predominant diagnosis interfering with duty at the time was the non-compensable personality disorder. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A response to the Air Force evaluation was provided...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01431
Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Medical Consultant recommended denial noting the applicant was administratively discharged in 1963 for unsuitability due to passive- aggressive personality disorder (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - I (DSM-I). The DVA has granted service-connected disability compensation based on that psychiatrist's...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00602
The applicant's character of service is correct as indicated on the DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. This is the reason why an individual can be found fit for release from active military service for one reason and yet thereafter receive compensation ratings from the DVA for medical conditions found service- connected, but which was not proven militarily unfitting during the period of active service. The applicant is advised that the VAs determination of...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | bc-2003-03798
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the action and disposition in the applicant’s case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04514
The IPEB reviewed his case and found the applicant unfit for continued military and recommended discharge with severance pay with a disability rating of 10 percent for a diagnosis of Anxiety Disorder, NOS. The complete DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He does not understand how his PTSD diagnosis would be blatantly ignored when two separate professional mental health...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02797
The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel responded and states that he concurs the recommendation of the Medical Consultant. The Board considered the applicant's request that his records be corrected to reflect that he was medically retired; however, the Board majority does not believe that his condition at the time of his discharge was severe enough to warrant a disability...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00679
Furthermore, the report stated the applicant was deemed unsuitable for continued military service on the basis of the Narcissistic Personality Disorder. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicants request to change his narrative reason for separation to a medical discharge. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2003-03798-2
On 29 April 2004, the Board considered and denied applicant’s request that his records be corrected to show that his medical problems were the cause of his discharge. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation, and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit F. The applicant has provided additional evidence through his Congressman’s office and requests that the Board reconsider his application. ...
He is rated 50 percent service connected and his record should be corrected accordingly. In a legal review of the discharge case file, the staff judge advocate found it legally sufficient and recommended that the applicant be discharged from the Air Force with an honorable discharge. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibit C, D...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00990
The evidence supports that both Delusional Disorder and PTSD were present, unfitting and compensable at the time the applicant was placed on the TDRL. The Air Force disability boards must rate disabilities based on the member's condition at the time of evaluation. The complete Medical Consultants evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Regarding the diagnosis of PTSD, counsel states that no...