RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER:BC-2010-00603 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

____________________________________________________________
_____ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be 
upgraded to honorable. 

 

2. He requests a medical retirement for his service-
connected post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 

 

____________________________________________________________
_____ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He believes he should have received a medical retirement 
based on the 50 percent disability rating he received from 
the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for his service-
connected PTSD. 

 

In support of his application, applicant provides a copy of 
his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from 
Active Duty, AF Form 356, Finding and Recommended 
Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board, and a 
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Rating Decision. 

 

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

____________________________________________________________
_____ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 29 Jul 98, the applicant contracted his initial 
enlistment in the Regular Air Force. He was progressively 
promoted to the grade of senior airman, having assumed the 
grade effective and with a date of rank of 8 Sep 07. He 
served as a security forces journeyman. 

 

On 7 Jul 08, his commander notified him that he was 
recommending his discharge from the Air Force for minor 
disciplinary infractions. The specific reasons for the 
discharge action were, he received five Letters of Reprimand 
(LORs), two Letters of Counseling (LOCs), one Article 15, 
and an entry in his Unfavorable Information File. 


 

His commander advised him of his rights in this matter. The 
applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and after 
consulting with legal counsel invoked his rights associated 
with an administrative discharge board and waived his right 
to submit statements in his own behalf. 

 

The legal office reviewed the case and found it legally 
sufficient to support separation and recommended discharge 
with a general discharge without probation and 
rehabilitation. 

 

The discharge authority directed discharge with a general 
discharge without probation and rehabilitation. 

 

The applicant's medical records reflect that while on active 
duty he was treated for a variety of medical conditions to 
include alcohol abuse, insomnia and PTSD and it was 
recommended he undergo a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). On 
16 Oct 08, he underwent an MEB and they recommended a review 
by the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). 

 

On 13 Nov 08, the IPEB found the applicant unfit due to PTSD 
and recommended placement on the Temporary Disability 
Retired List (TDRL) with a 50 percent disability rating. 
Due to his pending approved administrative discharge and now 
a medical separation, the final determination of the reason 
for discharge and character of service would be determined 
by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) 
via a "dual-action" case analysis. 

 

On 27 Mar 09, the SAFPC issued its findings and directed 
that the applicant be discharged by the approved 
administrative action; thereby terminating the medical 
separation action. 

 

He was discharged on 24 Apr 09 with a general discharge. He 
was credited with 10 years, 8 months and 26 days of active 
service. 

 

____________________________________________________________
_____ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends changing the 
applicant’s narrative reason for separation to PTSD which 
would change his character of service to honorable. The 
Medical Consultant states it was established that the 
applicant indeed suffered from chronic PTSD, Alcohol Abuse, 
and Insomnia. The Physical Evaluation Board found him unfit 
due to his PTSD. He was also, the subject of an involuntary 
discharge due to several minor disciplinary infractions. The 
SAFPC during the dual action analysis acknowledged the 


presence of the applicant's PTSD diagnosis, but found no 
causal or mitigating relationship between his acts of 
misconduct and his PTSD; and that mitigating factors were 
insufficient. The Medical Consultant finds no obvious error 
in the conduct of the applicant's case at any stage in 
development. Additionally, none of his acts of misconduct 
are particularly unique to PTSD and are as likely to be 
committed by individuals with no underlying mental disorder; 
except for alcohol-abuse. In view of his three deployments, 
the plausible worsening of his alcohol usage in the 
collective context of his PTSD, headaches, and resultant 
insomnia, the Medical Consultant finds consideration for 
mitigation of some of the applicant's acts of misconduct. 
However, illegal passing, improper crossing of an active 
runway, improper change-over procedures can hardly be 
attributed to PTSD; nor is refusing to supply legal 
authorities a requested specimen a sign or symptom of PTSD. 
However, electing to consume alcohol in the first place re-
establishes the aforementioned nexus suggested by his 
psychologist. The Medical Consultant finds the lines very 
blurred regarding which is the appropriate basis for 
separation; and while acknowledging his sacrifices in 
support of the War on Terror should be taken into 
consideration, thousands of others have been deployed with 
no alcohol abuse and no misconduct. Finally, he should also 
be reminded that, unlike the Department of Defense, 
operating under Title 10, United States Code, the Department 
of Veterans Affairs (DVA), operating under a different set 
of laws (Title 38, U.S.C.) offers compensation for any 
service incurred or aggravated medical condition, without 
regard to its impact upon a service member's retainability, 
fitness for duty, or reason for career termination. Thus, 
the mere fact that the applicant has received a disability 
rating and compensation by the DVA does not constitute a 
justification for a like action by the Department of 
Defense. The Medical Consultant opines if the Board elects 
to offer the applicant relief, whether as a matter of 
clemency or based upon the facts of the case, that relief 
should be the establishment of the applicant on the TDRL 
with a 50% disability rating due to PTSD effective his date 
of separation. This should be followed by an immediate 
psychiatric re-evaluation followed by a determination of his 
fitness to serve by the Informal Physical Evaluation Board, 
or subsequent appellate authorities as necessary. 

 

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant's complete 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 12 Aug 10 for review and comment within 30 
days. As of this date, this office has received no 
response. 

 

____________________________________________________________
_____ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by 
existing law or regulations. 

 

2. The application was timely filed. 

 

3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting 
some relief. We took notice of the applicant's complete 
submission in judging the merits of the case; and 
acknowledged that a clear relationship could not be 
established between all of his disciplinary infractions and 
the diagnosis of PTSD. However, we considered the 
applicant’s three deployments, the analysis of the military 
psychologist, who cited the cyclic relationship between the 
applicant’s recurring alcohol abuse, PTSD, and resultant 
insomnia, in rendering the benefit of doubt in his favor. 
We concur with the recommendations by the AFBCMR Medical 
Consultant that the record should be changed to reflect that 
the applicant was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired 
List with a 50percent disability rating due to PTSD, under 
VA rating code 9411, effective April 24, 2009, that he shall 
undergo an immediate mental health re-evaluation by a 
psychiatrist or psychologist, and that the information, 
along with any other available medical evidence, is provided 
to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board for a 
determination of the applicant’s fitness to serve and, if 
found unfit, to assign the proper disability rating and 
final disposition of his case. This action places the 
applicant back within the military Disability Evaluation 
System, under provisions of AFI 36-3212, with the 
eligibility for further appellate review of any subsequent 
recommended actions in his case. Therefore, we recommend 
the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below. 

 

____________________________________________________________
___ 

 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that: 

 

 a. On 23 April 2009, he was found unfit to perform 
the duties of his office, rank, grade or rating by reason of 


physical disability incurred while he was entitled to 
received basic pay; that the diagnosis in his case was Post 
Traumatic Stress Disorder VASRD Code 9411, rated at 50 
percent; that the disability was not due to intentional 
misconduct or willful neglect; that the disability was not 
incurred during a period of unauthorized absence; and that 
the disability was not received in the line of duty as a 
direct result of armed conflict or caused by instrumentality 
of war. 

 

 b. On 24 April 2009, he was honorably discharged 
by reason of a physical disability and his name was placed 
on the Temporary Disability Retired List. 

 

 c. As regards the election of survivor Benefit Plan 
options, the record will be corrected in accordance with the 
member’s subsequently expressed preferences and/or as 
otherwise provided for by law or the Code of Financial 
Regulations. 

 

____________________________________________________________
_____ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-00603 in Executive Session on 23 Nov 10, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, 26 Feb 09, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 28 
Jul 09. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Jul 09. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair