RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02437
		COUNSEL:  NONE
	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________
__

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

2.  He be granted a medical retirement with full benefits and 
services.

________________________________________________________________
__

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His unsatisfactory job performance that led to his discharge was 
due to his undiagnosed Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  
He had no awareness of PTSD and was never afforded a 
psychological evaluation prior to his discharge.  With a proper 
assessment he would have been diagnosed with PTSD, received the 
proper treatment and would not have been discharged for 
unsatisfactory performance.  He received a service connected 
disability rating from the Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) 
for PTSD.  Therefore, he should have been given a medical 
retirement for PTSD.

In support of his request the applicant provides copies of his 
DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty; discharge 
documents, Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Review Officer 
Decision, performance reports and various other documents 
associated with his request.

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

________________________________________________________________
__

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 5 May 1970, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.

On 15 Feb 1984, his commander notified him she was recommending 
he be discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, 
Administrative Separation of Airmen, for unsatisfactory 
performance.

On 27 Mar 1984, the applicant requested a hearing before an 
administrative discharge board.

On 11 Apr 1984, his commander notified him that an 
administrative discharge board would be convened to determine 
whether he would be discharged.

On 19 Apr 1984, the Administrative Discharge Board recommended 
that he be discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, with a 
general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

On 13 Jul 1984, the Deputy Staff Judge Advocate found the 
discharge action legally sufficient.

On 19 Jul 1984, the discharge authority approved the separation 
and directed a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

On 24 Jul 1984, the applicant received a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge.  He was credited with 14 years, 
2 months and 19 days of total active service.

________________________________________________________________
__

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
upgrade his discharge or that he be granted a medical 
retirement.  DPSOR states that documentation on file in the 
master personnel records support the basis for discharge.  The 
discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive 
requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the 
discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not 
submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that 
occurred in the discharge processing.  

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The BCMR Medical 
Consultant states that the applicant appears to have been 
diagnosed with PTSD sometime prior to 23 Dec 2009 and awarded 
disability compensation at 10 percent.  Based on DVA records it 
appears the applicant’s condition worsened and his compensation 
rating was increased to 30 percent as of 23 Dec 2009 [25 years 
after discharge].  Addressing the applicant’s implicit desire 
for a medical retirement, the military Disability Evaluation 
System (DES), established to maintain a fit and vital fighting 
force, can by law, under Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), 
only offer compensation for those service incurred diseases or 
injuries which specifically rendered a member unfit for 
continued active service and were the cause for career 
termination; and then only for the degree of impairment present 
at the time of separation and not based on future occurrences.

On the other hand, operating under a different set of laws 
(Title 38, U.S.C.), with a different purpose, the DVA is 
authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition 
determined service incurred, without regard to [and independent 
of] its demonstrated or proven impact upon a service member’s 
retainability, fitness to serve, narrative reason for 
separation, or the intervening or transpired period since the 
date of separation.  With this in mind, Title 38, U.S.C. was 
written to allow awarding compensation ratings for conditions 
that were not unfitting for military service or at the time of 
separation.  This is the reason why an individual can be found 
fit for release from military service and yet sometime 
thereafter receive a compensation rating from the DVA for 
service-connected, but militarily non-unfitting conditions.  The 
DVA is also empowered to conduct periodic re-evaluations for the 
purpose of adjusting the disability rating awards (increase or 
decrease) as the level of impairment from a given service 
connected medical condition may vary, affecting future 
employability over the lifetime of the veteran.  This is why the 
applicant’s awarded 10 percent (was increased to 30 percent as 
of 23 Dec 2009) for PTSD with depression not otherwise 
specified.

The Medical Consultant could not find supporting evidence to 
establish that the applicant was unable to reasonably perform 
his military duties due to one or more medical conditions during 
his military service.  Had the applicant been evaluated under 
the military DES system, he would have been found fit for duty, 
and if found unfit his disability of 10 percent would have been 
below the threshold for a medical retirement in 1984.  The 
applicant has not met the burden of proof of error or injustice 
that warrants the desired change to his record.

The complete Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________
__

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical advisory opinion is not based on fact.  The 
records clearly show that he enlisted in the Air Force on 5 May 
1970 and was separated on 24 Jul 1984, which computes to 
14 years, 2 months and 19 days - not 12 years, 4 months and 
27 days.  He reasserts his request that his discharge be 
upgraded to honorable.  The evidence shows that after 14 years 
of honorable service, his PTSD and the pain from the injuries he 
suffered during his military service manifested into 
unsatisfactory performance.  He has three periods of honorable 
service and was allowed to reenlist in 1974, 1978 and 
1982 because of his outstanding record.  Since his discharge he 
has received treatment for his PTSD and has been a model 
citizen.  He is a respected local, state and national leader and 
a patriot.  He did not fail the Air Force, the Air Force failed 
him.  The DVA rated him 100 percent disabled and he has no doubt 
that had a complete physical and psychological examination been 
completed he would have been given a medical discharge. 

In further support of his request, the applicant provides 
numerous photos, copies of letters of appreciation, DVA 
correspondence, PTSD Fact sheet and various other documents 
related to his appeal.

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

________________________________________________________________
__

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 in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not 
been the victim of an error or injustice.  While the applicant’s 
response to the evaluations is noted, other than his 
uncorroborated assertions, he has not provided any evidence 
which in our opinion, successfully refutes the assessments of 
his case by the aforementioned evaluations.  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 that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that 
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 
that 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 this application 
in Executive Session on 4 and 5 Mar 2014, under the provisions 
of AFI 36-2603:

      , Panel Chair
      , Member
      , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2013-02437:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 May 2013, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 10 Jul 2013.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, BCMR Medical Advisory, dated 
                25 Jul 2013.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 31 Jul 2013.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 28 Aug 2013, w/atchs.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair

6


6