DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

 

 
Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 

   

 

 
 

 

 
 
 

 

 
 
 

 

 
 
 

 

   
XXXXXXX 

 

HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2011-03880 
  
COUNSEL:  XXXXX 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His  records  be  corrected  to  show  that  he  was  rated  70  percent 
for  Post-Traumatic  Stress  Disorder  (PTSD)  and  permanently 
retired by reason of physical disability, rather than discharged 
for a personality disorder. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
He should have been medically retired, based on the diagnosis of 
PTSD, which the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) has awarded 
him a disability rating of 70 percent. 
 
He  has  been  diagnosed  with  PTSD  by  four  different  medical 
providers.  Prior to his discharge, he was erroneously diagnosed 
with  a  personality  disorder,  due  to  erroneous  information 
originating  from  the  improper  diagnosis  of  Attention  Deficit 
Disorder  and  subsequent  improper  treatment.    He  would  have  been 
diagnosed  with  PTSD  and  medically  retired,  had  his  command  and 
the diagnosing psychiatrist known of the true events surrounding 
his  condition,  as  those  with  a  similar  diagnosis,  receive  a 
minimum disability rating of 50 percent. 
 
Within  the  last  three  years,  while  under  a  civilian  physician’s 
care,  he  has  come  to  understand  that  he  did  not  have  a 
personality  disorder,  but  rather  his  psychological  problems 
stemmed  directly  from  a  traumatic  event  that  occurred  over 
Memorial  Day  weekend  in  1996.    During  that  weekend,  while  on  a 
camping  trip,  he  challenged  a  fellow  airman  to  swim  across  a 
river.    The  other  airman  was  swept  away  by  the  current  and 
drowned.  He accepted blame for the death.  His commander blamed 
him  for  the  incident,  as  an  act  of  irresponsibility.    He  was 
treated with disdain and indifference, and made as an example of 
how  fellow  airmen  should  not  act  in  dangerous  situations,  with 
punishment  consisting  of  denying  him  an  opportunity  to  attend 
the  memorial  service  and  making  him  personally  apologize  to  the 
late  airmen’s  airman’s  parents.    However,  his  command  did  not 

know  at  the  time  that  he  and  the  other  airman  were  homosexuals 
and  had  formed  a  close  romantic  relationship  over  many  months.  
Witnessing  his  romantic  partner  disappear  in  the  river  caused  a 
great deal of trauma and the 16-day search for the airman’s body 
exacerbated the trauma. 
 
In  2001,  he  was  diagnosed  with  ADD,  after  seeking  medical 
treatment  for  the  depression  and  emotional  problems  he 
experienced  after  the  airman’s  death.    He  later  married  and  in 
2003,  fathered  a  child;  however,  his  wife  miscarried.    They  had 
another  child  in  2004  but  separated  prior  to  her  birth  and  he 
was  not  allowed  to  witness  her  birth.    He  attempted  regular 
communication  with  his  daughter  but  was  met  with  strong 
resistance from the mother and her family. 
 
Throughout  his  12-year  military  career,  he  never  received  any 
form  of  adverse  action,  received  exceptional  evaluations,  and 
was  awarded  the  Air  Force  Commendation  Medal  and  four  Good 
Conduct Medals. 
 
In  support  of  the  appeal,  the  applicant  submits  the  statements 
of  four  physicians,  noting  the  diagnoses  of  major  depressive 
disorder  and  PTSD;  newspaper  articles  concerning  the  airman’s 
death  and  PTSD;  statements  of  recommendation;  extracts  from  his 
military  personnel  and  medical  records;  extracts  from  his  DVA 
medical records. 
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  applicant  is  a  former  enlisted  member  of  the  Regular  Air 
Force,  who  served  on  active  duty  from  23  April  1993  to 
25 October 2005, as a supply management craftsman. 
 
On 3 October 2005, the applicant was notified of his commander’s 
intent  to  recommend  his  administrative  discharge  for  conditions 
that  interfere  with  military  service,  i.e.,  mental  disorders  - 
adjustment  disorders;  and  that  if  approved,  he  would  receive  an 
honorable  discharge.    The  commander  noted  his  reasons  for  the 
proposed action were the 12 September 2005 psychiatric diagnosis 
of an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, 
attention  deficient  hyperactivity  disorder  and  occupational 
problems, rendering him unsuitable for further military service; 
and  the  27  September  2005  statement  from  the  Rapid  Area 
Distribution  Support  (RADS)  Team  Chief,  that  his  ability  to 
function  in  a  military  environment  was  negatively  impacted  the 
diagnosis of ADD.  He acknowledged receipt of the administrative 
discharge  action  and  of  his  rights  to  consult  with  military 
legal  counsel,  submit  statements  in  his  own  behalf,  and  to  a 
hearing  before  an  administrative  discharge  board.    He  waived 
these  rights  and  acknowledged  that  regardless  of  the 
recommendation,  he  could  be  discharged  under  other  than 
honorable conditions. 
 

 

 

On  12  October  2005,  the  discharge  authority  approved  the 
recommendation  and  directed  that  he  be  discharged  with  an 
honorable  discharge  for  conditions  that  interfere  with  military 
service, i.e., mental disorders - adjustment disorders. 
 
On  25  October  2005,  he  was  honorably  discharged  for  a 
personality disorder, after completing 12 years, 6 months, and 2 
days of active service. 
 
On  9  December  2008,  the  DVA  awarded  him  a  10  percent  disability 
rating  for  tinnitus,  effective  9  July  2007;  and  a  70  percent 
disability rating for PTSD, effective 20 August 2007. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
The  Senior  AFBCMR  Medical  Advisor  recommends  denial  of  the 
applicant’s request for disability retirement, with a 70 percent 
rating.    However,  he  does  recommend  correcting  the  record  to 
reflect  the  narrative  reason  for  the  applicant’s  separation  was 
either  “Adjustment  Disorder”  or  “Secretarial  Authority,”  rather 
than  “Personality  Disorder,”  since,  at  the  time  of  his 
separation,  the  applicant  was  diagnosed  with  an  adjustment 
disorder,  rather  than  a  personality  disorder.    Although 
“Personality  Disorder”  was  the  standard  default  entry  that  was 
placed  on  a  DD  Form  214  at  the  time  of  the  applicant’s 
separation  when  a  mental  disorder,  not  constituting  a 
compensable  disability,  was  the  cause  for  separation,  the 
Department  of  Defense  (DoD)  has  since  determined  the  narrative 
reason  of  “Adjustment  Disorder”  is  more  appropriate.    Further, 
it  would  not  be  appropriate  to  change  the  narrative  reason  to 
PTSD  unless  he  had  been  diagnosed  with  this  condition  while  in 
the  service  or  if  it  could  be  proven  to  have  been  the  cause  for 
the  termination  of  his  career.    A  preponderance  of  medical 
evidence  indicates  that,  although  post-service  testimony  and 
clinical  history  rendered  to  the  DVA  and  other  civilian 
providers  have  met  the  criteria  for  PTSD,  the  applicant’s 
service  medical  records  do  not  corroborate  either  the  symptoms 
described  in  the  DVA  examiner’s  evaluation  or  evidence  of  any 
resultant  impairment  during  his  military  service.    As  such, 
although  the  DVA  established  a  nexus  between  PTSD  and  his 
military  service,  this  does  not  invalidate  the  clinical 
assessments  and  diagnostic  conclusions  rendered  by  fully-
credentialed  and  competent  service  mental  health  providers; 
particularly  in  the  context  of  his  disclosed  history  of 
childhood  Attention  Deficit  Hyper-activity  Disorder  (ADHD), 
prior  to  treatment  with  Ritalin  and  his  reported  positive 
response 
Nevertheless,  he  acknowledges  the  unquantifiable  impact  of  the 
applicant’s  failure  to  disclose  the  true  nature  of  the  close 
relationship  he  had  with  the  male  decedent  upon  his  underlying 
emotional well-being over the approximate course of the 10 years 
[and  the  consequences  of  such  disclosure  at  the  time]; 
particularly  in  the  immediate  weeks  and  months  following  the 
1996 death of his friend.  However, the preponderance of medical 
evidence  does  not  suggest  that  PTSD  was,  or  should  have  been, 
the  cause  for  terminating  his  military  career.    Although  the 

treatment 

during 

to 

his 

military 

service.  

 

 

Class  Action  law  suit  of  Sabo  v  US  is  noted,  the  applicant  is 
reminded  that  he  would  only  be  eligible  for  a  military  unfit 
finding  and  compensation  if  PTSD  (caused  by  the  traumatic  event 
of 1996) was the actual cause for terminating his career. 
 
Under  Title  10  the  military  Disability  Evaluation  System  (DES) 
only  offers  compensation  for  the  medical  cause  of  career 
termination  and  then  only  to  the  degree  of  impairment  at  the 
time  of  final  military  disposition;  whereas,  operating  under 
Title  39,  the  DVA  offers  compensation  for  any  medical  condition 
determined to be service-connected, without regard to its impact 
upon  a  service  member’s  fitness  to  service.    For  this  reason,  a 
member  may  be  released  from  service  for  one  reason,  but  later 
receive  DVA  compensation  for  one  or  more  medical  consideration 
that  were  not  unfitting  for  military  service  at  the  time  of 
separation.    Moreover,  the  DVA  is  empowered  to  conduct  periodic 
evaluations  for  the  purpose  of  adjusting  the  rating  award,  as 
the  level  of  impairment  may  vary  over  the  lifetime  of  the 
veteran. 
 
The  complete  Senior  AFBCMR  Medical  Advisor’s  evaluation  is  at 
Exhibit C. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
The  applicant’s  counsel  agrees  the  narrative  reason  for 
separation  should  be  changed  from  “Personality  Disorder”  and 
affirms  the  position  that  disability  retirement  is  appropriate, 
based  on  the  diagnosis  of  PTSD.    However,  should  the  Board  deny 
the  requested  relief  they  request  the  alternative  relief,  i.e., 
changing  the  narrative  reason  for  separation  to  “Secretarial 
Authority,” as suggested by the Senior AFBCMR Medical Advisor be 
provided.    This  notwithstanding,  counsel  disagrees  with  the 
assessment  of  the  applicant’s  condition  at  time  of  separation 
and  notes  that  his  PTSD  could  have  been  diagnosed  while  on 
active  duty,  based  on  the  evidence  of  record,  i.e.,  traumatic 
event  occurred  early  in  his  AF  career,  was  later  determined  to 
be  the  cause  of  his  PTSD,  was  diagnosed  by  four  medical 
professionals, etc.  As a result his PTSD went untreated and the 
Air Force, assuming he had ADHD medicated him with amphetamines, 
which  subsequently  rendered  him  unfit  for  continued  military 
service.  The majority of his problems stemmed from PTSD that he 
suffered in 1996 and the lack of proper treatment.  Therefore, a 
reasonable  nexus  exists  between  the  PTSD  and  his  inability  to 
service  nearly  10  years  after  trauma.    Although  the  medical 
advisor  is  correct  in  some  of  his  assertions,  his  analysis  is 
incomplete  and  fails  to  properly  weight  many  of  the  necessary 
facts.  Additionally, his detailed analysis should be considered 
secondary  to  those  who  spent  hours  treating  the  applicant, 
understanding  his  condition,  and  how  it  affected  his  service 
from 1996 to 2005. 
  
The  complete  response  of  the  applicant’s  counsel  is  at  Exhibit 
E. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 
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.  Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  error  or  injustice  to  warrant 
changing  the  applicant’s  narrative  reason  for  separation  from 
“Personality  Disorder”  to  “Secretarial  Authority.”    In  this 
respect,  we  note  that  at  the  time  of  his  separation,  he  was 
diagnosed with an adjustment disorder, rather than a personality 
disorder.  While “Personality Disorder” was the standard default 
narrative  reason  for  separation  entry  that  was  placed  on  a  DD 
Form 214 at the time of the applicant’s separation when a mental 
disorder,  not  constituting  a  compensable  disability,  was  the 
cause  for  separation,  the  Department  of  Defense  (DoD)  has  since 
determined the narrative reason of “Adjustment Disorder” is more 
appropriate.  In view of this, the Senior AFBCMR Medical Advisor 
has  recommended  the  applicant’s  narrative  reason  for  separation 
be  changed  to  either  “Adjustment  Disorder”  or  “Secretarial 
Authority.”    The  applicant  and  his  counsel  concur  with  the 
recommendation  to  change  the  narrative  reason  to  the  latter.  
Therefore,  in  view  of  the  above,  we  recommend  his  records  be 
corrected to the extent indicated below. 
 
4.  Notwithstanding  the  foregoing,  we  find  insufficient  relevant 
evidence  has  been  presented  to  warrant  favorable  consideration 
of  his  request  for  a  permanent  disability  retirement,  with  a  70 
percent  rating.    After  thoroughly  reviewing  the  evidence  of 
record  and  noting  the  applicant’s  contentions,  we  are  not 
persuaded  that  he  should  have  been  medically  retired,  based  on 
the  diagnosis  of  PTSD.    We  recognize  the  applicant  has  been 
diagnosed  with  PTSD  by  four  different  medical  providers  since 
his  2005  discharge  and  the  DVA  has  awarded  him  a  70  percent 
disability  rating  for  this  condition.    We  also  understand  the 
applicant’s  reluctance  to  disclose  the  true  nature  of  the  close 
relationship  he  had  with  the  male  decedent  at  the  time  of  his 
death in 1986; however, once administrative discharge action was 
initiated  against  him  in  2005,  based  on  the  diagnosis  of  an 
adjustment  disorder,  we  find  no  plausible  reason  for  him 
withholding  such  information  at  that  time  if  it  was  adversely 
affecting  his  wellbeing.    Further,  the  preponderance  of  the 
evidence  before  us  does  not  establish  that  PTSD  was  the  cause 
for  the  termination  of  his  military  career,  as  there  is  no 
indication  in  his  service  medical  records  that  he  had  this 
condition  at  the  time  of  his  separation.    We  find  this  further 
evidenced  by  the  fact  the  DVA  did  not  rate  this  condition 
effective  until  almost  two  years  after  his  2005  separation, 
rather  than  retroactively  effective  on  the  day  following  his 
separation.    Based  on  the  foregoing,  we  agree  with  the  opinion 
of  the  Senior  AFBCMR  Medical  Advisor  as  expressed  in  his 
thorough and comprehensive evaluation, which is supported by the 
evidence of record, and adopt his rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion  that  no  basis  exists  to  further  disturb  the 

 

 

applicant’s  record.    Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to 
the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to  grant  his  request 
for permanent disability retired, with a 70 percent rating. 
 
5.  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  issue(s) 
involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 
 
The  pertinent  military  records  of  the  Department  of  the  Air 
Force  relating  to  APPLICANT,  be  corrected  to  show  that  at  the 
time  of  his  honorable  discharge  on  25  October  2005,  the 
narrative reason for his separation was “Secretarial Authority,” 
rather  than  “Personality  Disorder,”  and  his  separation  code  was 
“KFF,” rather than “HFX.”  
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number  BC-2011-03880  in  Executive  Session  on  30  October  2012, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 

 
 
 

XXXXX, Panel Chair 
XXXXX, Member 
XXXXX, Member 

  Dated 6 Jun 12. 

 
All  members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.    The 
following  documentary  evidence  was  considered  in  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2011-03880: 
 
     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Jun 11, w/atchs. 
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
     Exhibit C.  Memorandum, Senior Medical Advisor, AFBCMR, 
 
 
 
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 7 Jun 12. 
     Exhibit E.  Letter, Counsel, dated 6 Jul 12 
 
 
 
 
                                   XXXXX 
                                   Panel Chair