RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04247 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His narrative reason for separation (Unsuitable – Personality 
Disorder) be changed to reflect Post Traumatic Stress Disorder 
(PTSD). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His medical diagnosis is PTSD - this was not a recognized 
disorder at the time he was discharged. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 18 November 
1977. 

 

The applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to 
recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the 
provisions of AFM 39-12. The specific reasons were as follows: 
the applicant was disqualified from his AFSC (206XX) and was 
entered into training in the 60310 (vehicle operation) career 
field. However, the heavy medication prescribed and used by him 
made his utilization as an Air Force vehicle operator a 
precarious proposition. The commander directed that he was not 
to operate a Government Motor Vehicle (GMV) while taking the 
large amounts of drugs prescribed by USAF medical authorities. 
He had been medically disqualified from his previous AFSC and for 
all practical purposes could not perform in his new AFSC. 
Additionally, the diagnosis and recommendation by the Chief, 
Mental Health Clinic indicates that the applicant’s situation was 
volatile and unpredictable. The report further stated that 
separation was the wisest course of action. 

 

 

 

 


He was advised of his rights in this matter and after consulting 
with counsel, the applicant submitted a conditional waiver 
requesting an honorable discharge. In a legal review of the case 
file, the staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient 
and recommended discharge. 

 

On 12 March 1981, the applicant was honorably discharged under 
the provisions of AFM 39-12 (Unsuitable – Personality Disorder). 
He served 3 years, 3 months and 26 days on active duty and 
credited with 1 year and 5 month of foreign service. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical 
Consultant states over time as in this case after a decade, an 
individual’s pattern of behavior or reported symptoms may vary, 
e.g., expand, improve, worsen, or may be reported differently as 
new functional impairments arise which were not clinically 
apparent or overly present during service. Thus, the fact that 
the applicant has since been service connected for PTSD, as 
determined in 1993 and, as of 1995 has sustained a total (100%) 
disability rating, does not invalidate the findings and 
diagnostic conclusions reached at the time of the applicant’s 
military service. In fact, the Medical Consultant notes that 
following an 18 December 1966 VA claim for a nervous disorder, 
the VA medical officials issued a diagnosis of Anxiety Neurosis 
with Depression and assigned 10% disability rating based upon an 
examination completed on 22 July 1987; but made effective the 
date of claim was filed. 

 

However, the Medical Consultant wishes to direct attention to the 
fact that the applicant had been issued a military diagnosis of 
Anxiety Neurosis and/or Depressive Neurosis over a several month 
period, only to have the diagnosis changed to a clearly unsuiting 
and non-compensable Passive Aggressive Personality Disorder on or 
about 12 February 1981. Over thirty years later, the Medical 
Consultant cannot impugn the assessment by the military provider 
as erroneous (mistaken or deliberate) or whether it was simply 
based upon the preponderance of evidence at the time which, 
noting the emergence of thoughts of harm to self and family 
member (12 February 1981), which in the opinion of the Medical 
Consultant suggests maladaptive pattern of thought akin to an 
Adjustment Disorder if not Personality Disorder. Nevertheless, 
there appears to have been no indication of eligibility or intent 
to process the applicant through the Disability Evaluation System 
(DES), under AFM 35-4 (forerunner of today’s AFI 36-3212). 

 

The applicant and the Board are reminded that operating under 
Title 10, U.S.C., the Military Department can by law only offer 
compensation for the illness or injury that causes career 
termination, and then only to the degree of impairment present 


the “snap-shot” time of final military disposition. Whereas, 
operating under a different set of laws [Title 38, U.S.C.] with a 
different purpose, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) is 
authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition for 
which a nexus with military service has been established, without 
regard to its proven impact upon a member’s retainability, 
fitness to serve, narrative reason for release from military 
service, or the intervening period since discharge. Moreover, 
the DVA is empowered to conduct periodic evaluations for the 
purpose of adjusting (increase or decrease) the disability rating 
as the level of impairment emanating from a given medical 
condition may vary (improve or worsen) over the lifetime of the 
veteran. 

 

Although the DVA has since established a nexus between the 
applicant’s history [beginning in 1978] of occupational stress, 
the symptoms reported in 1987, and the evidence of escalating 
symptoms in 1993 and 1995, in establishing service connection for 
the diagnosis of PTSD, the Medical Consultant opines these facts 
are not determinative that PTSD was an unfitting medical 
condition [despite the lack of nomenclature] at the time of the 
applicant’s military service. Nevertheless, the Board may 
collectively consider the applicant’s top performance during 
Basic Military Service, his initial laudatory performance 
reports, his apparent decline after assignment to an undesired 
occupation, the perception of an “11th hour” change in diagnosis 
by the military service provider, and the post-service diagnosis 
of PTSD, in offering the applicant alternative relief by changing 
the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority. 

 

The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit 
C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 24 February 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days 
(Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 injustice. After a 


thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s 
submission, we believe that relief is not warranted and the 
applicant has not provided any evidence which would lead us to 
believe otherwise. His contentions are duly noted; however, the 
detailed comments provided by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant 
adequately address these allegations. Therefore, 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 failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has 
suffered either an error or an injustice. In the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting 
the relief sought. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of an 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-2012-04247 in Executive Session on 18 June 2013, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-04247 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. Record of Proceedings, dated 6 September 2012, 

 w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant dated 

 22 February 2012. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated March 2013.