RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00799

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded 
to honorable or a medical discharge.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was in error and unjust.  While on active duty, he 
was experiencing the symptoms and traits for a depression and 
anxiety disorder.  However, the military medical providers 
failed to diagnose and treat his condition.  His condition 
contributed to his actions and subsequent discharge.  After 
being discharged, his civilian medical provider diagnosed him 
with depression and anxiety disorder.  The Department of 
Veterans Affairs (DVA) has determined his condition was service 
connected and awarded him a 50 percent disability rating.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 31 Jan 79, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the 
Regular Air Force.

On 3 Nov 80, the applicant’s commander notified him he was 
recommending his discharge from the Air Force for unsuitability 
(apathy and defective attitude).  The reasons for the action 
were the applicant’s failure to maintain prescribed standards of 
dress, personal appearance, and military deportment.  The 
following derogatory information was cited in the notification 
for discharge: removal from the Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation 
Program (DARP), failure to report for duty, nonjudicial 
punishment (NJP) for failing to have his hair properly trimmed, 
NJP failure to go from his appointed place of duty, NJP for 
failure to have his hair and mustache properly trimmed, Letter 
of Reprimand (LOR) for failure to report for duty.  The 
notification for discharge also indicated the applicant was 
counseled on several occasions regarding dress, appearance, and 
proper wear of uniform.  He underwent urinalysis and tested 
positive for Phencyclidine (PCP), placement on remedial training 
for Career Development Course (CDC) Volume II, dishonored check 
notification.  The applicant stated to a fellow airman that he 
had tried several ways to get out of the Air Force but had not 
succeeded.

On 3 Nov 80, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action.  
An evaluation officer was appointed who interviewed the 
applicant, reviewed his records and case file, and recommended 
the applicant be furnished a general discharge certificate 
without probation and rehabilitation.

On 24 Nov 80, the legal office reviewed the case and found it 
legally sufficient to support separation and recommended the 
applicant be furnished a general discharge without probation and 
rehabilitation.

The discharge authority directed the applicant be furnished a 
general discharge and the applicant was so discharged on 
5 Dec 80 and was credited with one year, ten months, and four 
days of total active service.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there 
is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  There was no 
evidence submitted showing the applicant was unfit to perform 
his duties due to a mental disorder at the time of his 
involuntary discharge.  Although the applicant was treated for 
various medical conditions throughout his military service, 
there was no indication of a mental condition that would warrant 
consideration through the disability evaluation system (DES).  
The applicant’s records did not contain any mental health 
assessments or episodes of care that reflect an impairment of 
function that rendered him non-worldwide qualified or warranted 
referral to a medical evaluation board (MEB).

The DES was established to maintain a fit and vital fighting 
force and can, by law, only offer compensation for those service 
incurred diseases or injures which specifically rendered a 
service member unfit for continued active 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 developments.  In the applicant’s case, he did 
not have a diagnosable mental disorder that interfered with his 
ability to perform military service or which would qualify for 
processing through the military DES.  In fact, his record 
contained several instances of minor disciplinary infractions 
and numerous instances of his desire to leave military service.  

The fact that the DVA has established a nexus between the 
applicant's post-service mental health diagnosis, his military 
service and his mood (2011 examination) is not proof of error of 
reason for release from service, nor does it validate a failure 
to properly diagnose during the applicant's military service or 
at the time of his release from military service.  The DVA 
operates under a different set of laws and is authorized to 
offer compensation for any medical condition that was incurred 
during military service, without regard to its demonstrated or 
proven impact upon a service member's retainability, fitness to 
serve, or narrative reason for separation.  Moreover, the DVA 
may adjust (increase or decrease) disability ratings as the 
level of impairment from a given medical condition may vary 
(worsen or improve) over the lifetime of the veteran.  This is 
reason why an individual may be discharged for one reason and 
then later receive a compensation rating for a clinical 
diagnosis that was not militarily unfitting at the time of 
discharge.

A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s 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 26 Apr 13, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  
As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice.  When determining punishment, the 
commander has authority to consider all circumstances regarding 
the offenses.  Throughout his military service, the applicant 
acted in a manner that was not consistent with Air Force 
standards of good order and discipline by demonstrating an 
extreme lack of integrity.  Due to the applicant’s lackluster 
duty performance and defective attitude he was not considered a 
good candidate for retention.  The documentation in the 
applicant’s master personnel records indicates the discharge, to 
include his characterization of service, was consistent with the 
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge manual 
and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________




APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

While on active duty, he was having severe psychological issues.  
His issues were not diagnosed by staff whose due diligence would 
have dictated a closer look at his mental health.  The failure 
of being diagnosed and treated for his mental issues resulted in 
his discharge. 

His commander was not aware of his mental condition.  However, 
ignorance does not excuse, nor make his punishment by a general 
discharge, acceptable.  His condition was not diagnosed by those 
charged with his care and well-being.  He was punished for 
symptoms of a mental disorder.

It also noted his behavior/character was labeled as “an extreme 
lack of integrity.”  This should be removed as it implies the 
circumstances of his situation were more severe than dress code 
violations, etc.  Since leaving the military he has not had any 
legal issues.  He has never been arrested and has a good credit 
score.  

His usefulness in the Air Force was diminished by his mental 
issues.  He has been able to survive after military life with 
medication.

His records show he was prescribed four different anti-anxiety 
medications.  His evidence supports that he was suffering from 
mental condition while on active duty.  His discharge was 
processed with extreme prejudice.  He was not a good candidate 
to keep on active duty; however, it was an undiagnosed 
medical/mental condition that led directly to his discharge. 

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

________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission, to include his rebuttal 
response, and his contentions were duly noted.  However, we do 
not find the applicant’s assertions and the documentation 
presented in support of his appeal sufficient to override the 
rationale provided by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and the Air 
Force office of primary responsibility (OPR).  Therefore, we 
agree with the opinion and recommendation of the AFBCMR Medical 
Consultant and the Air Force OPR and adopt their rationale as 
the basis for our conclusion that the applicant not been the 
victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting 
the relief sought in this application. 

4.  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 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-2013-00799 in Executive Session on 10 Dec 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Feb 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, 
                 dated 24 Apr 13.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Apr13.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 29 May 13.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jun 13.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs. 




                                   
                                   Panel Chair