ADDENDUM TO 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02962 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be 
upgraded to General (Under Honorable Conditions). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

By virtue of an application dated 1 Aug 09, the applicant 
requested that his 29 Jun 04 UOTHC discharge be upgraded to 
Honorable. He contended his discharge was unjust because he was 
diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and should 
have been medically discharged following his initial mental 
evaluation. On 1 Sep 10, the Board considered and denied 
applicant’s original request. For an accounting of the facts 
and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s original request 
and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the 
Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit F. 

 

In his current submission, dated 17 Jun 11, the applicant 
requests reconsideration of his case. He is now requesting his 
discharge of UOTHC be upgraded to General (Under Honorable 
Conditions) based upon new evidence. He reiterates his PTSD was 
not properly considered and he should have been medically 
discharged. In support of his latest submission, the applicant 
provides as new evidence a copy of his Department of Veterans 
Affairs (DVA) rating decision indicating his PTSD is service 
connected with a combined compensable disability rating of 50 
percent. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit G. 

 

The military service disability system, operating under Title 
10, United States Code (USC), can only offer compensation for 
those service incurred diseases or injuries which specifically 
rendered a member unfit for continued military service and were the cause for career termination, and then only for the degree 
of impairment present at the "snap shot" time of separation and 
not based on future disease progression. Thus, the mere 
presence of a medical condition during military service does not 


automatically constitute a basis for a disability separation or 
retirement. On the other hand, the DVA disability system, 
operating under Title 38, USC, takes into account physical 
conditions that, although not unfitting at the time of 
separation, may later progress in severity and alter the 
individual’s lifestyle and future employability. With this in 
mind, Title 38, USC, provides the DVA authority to award 
compensation ratings for conditions that were not unfitting for 
military service at the time of separation. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, 
extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained 
in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility (OPR) at Exhibit H. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error of injustice with regard to the applicant’s court-
martial or Article 15. The applicant has alleged injustice in 
his lack of treatment and consideration by the Air Force of his 
diagnosis of PTSD. Based upon the applicant’s personnel record, 
his application, and the information included in the Air Force 
Automated Military Justice Analysis and Management System 
(AMJAMS), there is no apparent error or injustice in how the 
court-martial was conducted. The applicant pled guilty at trial 
to the charge and specifications. On the court’s acceptance of 
the applicant’s guilty plea, it received evidence in 
aggravation, as well as in extenuation and mitigation, prior to 
crafting an appropriate sentence for the crimes committed. 

 

There is also no error in the processing of the Article 15. 
There is no indication the applicant’s rights were violated 
during the course of this process and the commander who imposed 
the punishment did not do so in an arbitrary or capricious 
manner. The applicant had the opportunity to submit written 
matters to, and have a hearing with, the commander imposing 
nonjudicial punishment. The applicant also had the chance to 
contest his commander’s decisions and appeal to the next higher 
commander. The applicant has not provided any support for a 
grant of clemency from the Board on either of the applicant’s 
military justice actions. 

 

A complete copy of AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit H. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant resubmitted his DD Form 149 in response to the Air 
Force advisory (Exhibit J). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 


THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. We have thoroughly reviewed the evidence of record and 
considered the weight and relevance of the additional 
documentation provided by the applicant, and whether or not it 
was discoverable at the time of any previous application. It 
appears the applicant believes the DVA's decision to award him a 
50 percent disability compensation rating for PTSD substantiates 
that he should have been discharged for physical disability 
rather than being discharged for abuse of illegal drugs. 
However, after a thorough review of the evidence of record and 
the applicant’s complete submission, we are not persuaded that 
he should have been found unfit for continued military service 
and furnished a disability separation. In this respect, we note 
the military service disability system can only offer 
compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries 
which specifically rendered a member unfit for continued 
military service and that were the cause for career termination. 
The applicant has provided no evidence whatsoever that his 
medical condition, while service related according to the DVA, 
rendered him unfit for continued military service. In fact, the 
applicant served successfully for many years while under Air 
Force medical care and treatment. Therefore, while we find the 
additional information provided by the applicant both new and 
relevant, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought in this application. 

 

2. 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-2011-02962 in Executive Session on 12 Apr 12, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

, Panel Chair 

, Member 

, Member 

 


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-02962 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit F. Record of Proceeding, dated 1 Sep 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit G. DD Form 149, dated 17 Jun 11, w/atch. 

 Exhibit H. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 24 Oct 11. 

 Exhibit I. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Nov 11. 

 Exhibit J. Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Jan 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair