RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02709

			COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His honorable discharge be changed to a medical discharge.

2.  His record be corrected to reflect his service in Okinawa.

3.  He be awarded the Purple Heart (PH).

4.  He receives all other awards earned during his active duty 
service.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have received a medical discharge.  He was diagnosed 
with a nervous disorder, seizures and a passive aggressive 
personality disorder at the time of his discharge.  

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
DD Form 214 Report of Separation from Active Duty, commander’s 
“letter of notification,” not dated, psychiatric evaluation, 
dated 3 February 1976, congressional representative letter 
regarding his attempt to join the Navy, National Archives (NA) 
Form 13059, Transmittal of and/or Entitlement to Awards, dated 
22 February 1994, Combat Preparedness certificate of training, 
AF Form 256, Honorable Discharge Certificate, unit certificate 
of merit, documents pertaining to his Department of Veterans 
Affairs appeal, and an internet excerpt regarding the current 
status of a base in Thailand.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

1.  According to copies of documents extracted from his military 
personnel record, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air 
Force on 31 March 1972.  He served as a Security Policeman and 
was progressively promoted to the grade of Sergeant, (Sgt), E-4, 
with a date of rank of 1 May 1974.

2.  On 13 April 1976, his commander notified the applicant of 
his intent to discharge him for unsuitability for military 
service under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for 
Unsuitability, Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for Discharge 
for the Good of the Service and Procedures for the 
Rehabilitation Program, September 1, 1966, chapter 2, section A, 
paragraph 2-4b.  The reasons for his proposed action were:

	a.  On 26 November 1975, he was cited for apparent 
loitering on post, however, no disciplinary action was taken.  

	b.  On 28 November 1975, he was temporarily disqualified in 
accordance with, (IAW) AFR 35-99, Human Reliability Program, 
because of family problems and possible nervous disorders.  He 
was subsequently referred to Social Actions office and the 
Mental Health Clinic.  

	c.  On 17 December 1975, through the Social Actions office 
referral, he was placed in the Alcohol Rehabilitation Program.

	d.  On 26 January 1976, he received a letter of reprimand 
for failure to meet a scheduled appointment.

	e.  On 2 February 1976, the Mental Health Clinic evaluated 
him, and diagnosed his problem as passive-aggressive personality 
and as being an alcohol abuser (habitual excessive drinking).  

	f.  On 12 February 1976, he received a second letter of 
reprimand for failure to meet a scheduled appointment.

	g.  On 19 February 1976, based upon the mental health 
evaluation, he was permanently disqualified IAW AFR 35-99.  He 
was further seen in the Mental Health Clinic on 
20 February 1976, at the request of the squadron commander, in 
regards to a possible discharge IAW AFR 39-12.  The Mental 
Health Clinic doctor confirmed the passive-aggressive 
personality disorder. 

	h.  On 18 March 1976, he received an Article 15 for failure 
to obey a lawful order to report to the Social Actions office.· 
For this incident, he was reduced to the grade of airman first 
class.  

The commander recommended that he be furnished an Honorable 
Discharge, notwithstanding, the final and type of discharge to 
be awarded rested with the discharge authority.  

3.  On 13 April 1976, the applicant acknowledged receipt of his 
commander’s intent to discharge him and that the recommendation 
for discharge could result in his being given a discharge 
certificate less favorable than honorable and that legal council 
had been made available to assist him.   

4.  Subsequent to the file being found legally sufficient, the 
discharge authority approved the recommendation, directed that 
the applicant be discharged, and be issued a DD Form 256, 
Honorable Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged 
effective 24 May 1976.  He was credited with serving 4 years, 1 
month, and 21 days of active duty service, to include, 1 year, 
and 6 months of foreign service.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force at Exhibits C, D, E, and F.  Accordingly, there is 
no need to recite these facts in this section of the Record of 
Proceedings.  

______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  DPSOR states the applicant did 
not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices 
that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no facts 
warranting a change to his reason and authority.  Based on the 
documentation on file in the master personnel records, the 
discharge, to include reason and authority, was consistent with 
the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge 
manual and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  

The complete AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

AFPC/DPAPP recommends denial.  DPAPP states that a review of his 
Master Personnel Records (MPR) and documentation submitted 
failed to provide any documents that substantiate foreign 
service time in Okinawa.  However, they were able to verify and 
confirm foreign service, boots on ground, in Thailand, from 
25 June 1973 to 23 June 1974.  

The complete AFPC/DPAPP evaluation is at Exhibit D.  

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the Purple Heart.  DPSID states 
the applicant contends that due to nervous disorder, seizures, 
and passive aggressive personality disorder, which he states, 
caused Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which, he claims, 
he received during his active duty service; he should be awarded 
the Purple Heart.  However, there is no Special Order, 
recommendation or signed certificate in the applicant's military 
personnel record indicating he was recommended or awarded the 
Purple Heart.  There is no evidence the applicant received an 
injury through enemy contact.  A diagnosis of PTSD does not meet 
the eligibility criteria for award of the Purple Heart.  A 
detailed personal account of how the injury occurred, medical 
documentation substantiating he received an injury which 
required medical treatment at the time the injury occurred, and 
eyewitness statements from individuals who saw the applicant 
receive the injury were not provided by the applicant.  There is 
no medical documentation in the applicant's military personnel 
record to substantiate any injuries he may have received were 
enemy related injuries. 

2.  The Purple Heart is awarded to members of the United States 
Armed Forces who have been wounded, killed, or who have died or 
may hereafter die of wounds received in action against an enemy 
of the United States or opposing force as a result of an act of 
any such enemy or opposing armed force, an international 
terrorist attack or during military operations while serving as 
a part of a peacekeeping force.  A wound for which the award is 
made must have required treatment, not merely examination, by a 
medical officer.  Additionally, treatment of the wound shall be 
documented in the service member's medical and/or health record.  
Award of the Purple Heart may be made for wounds treated by a 
medical professional other than a medical officer, provided a 
medical officer includes a statement in the service member's 
medical record that the extent of the wounds were such that they 
would have required treatment by a medical officer if one had 
been available to treat them.

3.  The Purple Heart Review Board has the authority (on behalf 
of the Secretary of the Air Force) to determine a veteran's 
award of the Purple Heart.  Each request is considered based on 
the policies and criteria in use at the time the veteran was 
injured, and the determination is dependent on the documentary 
evidence presented.  In order to present a request to the Purple 
Heart Review Board, the following information is required:

	a.  A detailed personal account of the circumstances 
surrounding the injury to include specifics as to how the 
applicant was injured, exact date of injury, unit of assignment, 
and rank held at the time of injury.

	b.  Medical documentation to substantiate medical treatment 
was received. If medical documentation is not available, a 
statement from a medical officer (military or civilian) 
attesting that an examination revealed that an injury of the 
type incurred would or should have received medical treatment 
may be submitted. Statements from individuals not substantiated 
by either medical or official records will not be considered 
sufficient evidence of wounds.  In this respect, entries on 
Reports of Separation are not considered official.  Concerning 
service-related conditions noted by the Veterans Administration, 
the injury must have been a direct result of the enemy and meet 
the Purple Heart criteria.  Unfortunately, not all service-
connected conditions, as determined by the Veterans 
Administration, meet the criteria for the award.

	c.  If possible, an eyewitness account from an individual 
who saw the applicant injured and can attest to the 
circumstances surrounding the applicant's personal account.

4.  Based on a thorough review of the applicant's official 
military personnel record, they were able to determine that the 
below Air Force Medals and/or Ribbons should have been awarded 
during the applicant's service from 31 March 1972 to 
24 May 1976, and were not reflected in his records.  Upon final 
board decision, administrative correction of the applicant's 
official military personnel record will be completed by 
AFPC/DPSOR:

	a.  Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with Valor and one 
Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster  (AFO UA w/V & BOLC).

	b.  Air Force Longevity Service Award (AFLSA).

	c.  Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm (RVNGC 
w/P).

After a thorough review of the applicant's official military 
personnel record, they were unable to verify award of the Purple 
Heart Medal.

The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit E.  

1.  The AFBCMR Medical Consultant opines that the applicant has 
not met the burden of proof of error or injustice to warrant the 
desired change of record.  The Medical Consultant is aware of 
recent concerns of Vietnam era veterans who were discharged for 
misconduct and/or personality disorders, who may have suffered 
from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  Although the 
applicant reportedly served in an area where his life was under 
threat one or more times, the preponderance of evidence does not 
reflect these exposures resulted in a mental disorder that 
justified processing as a compensable disability at the time of 
his release from military service; nor were proven the cause of 
his administrative infractions.

2.  The Medical Consultant acknowledges that “20/20 hindsight” 
offers any future reviewer not present at the time of a given 
event the advantage of collectively utilizing all previous 
facts, disclosures, and clinical expressions and matching those 
against any current disclosures (reported symptoms) or new 
clinical expressions, in sometimes reaching a different 
diagnostic disposition. However, any “new” or different 
conclusion reached under these circumstances, does not 
automatically invalidate the historical accuracy of findings, 
facts, and conclusions reached at the time of initial 
occurrence, e.g., the finding by a credentialed mental health 
provider that the applicant did not have a medical condition 
warranting processing under the Disability Evaluation System at 
the time of separation in 1976 versus the post-service award of 
compensation for PTSD by the Social Security Administration 
(SSA) administrative law judge in 1997; some 20 years post-
service.  

3.  It should be noted that conclusions reached were the result 
of interviews, observations, and objective testing prior to the 
applicant's discharge in 1976 and that he received an 
independent psychiatric reassessment reaching similar diagnostic 
conclusions, which resulted in his rejection from joining the 
Navy in 1980.  Thus, even though the applicant may have 
presented proof of exposures to hostile or life-threatening 
events during one period of service, or may have reported 
symptoms consistent with a de novo post-service diagnosis of 
PTSD, does not prove this diagnosis was either present 
(regardless of nomenclature), that is was unfitting, nor that it 
had a direct causal relationship with the pattern of behavior 
that resulted in his separation.

4.  The applicant and the Board are reminded that, operating 
under Title 10, United States Code (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.  

The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at 
Exhibit F. 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force and the BCMR Medical Consultant 
evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 4 April 2014 for 
review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit G).  To date, a 
response has not been received.  

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, other than the applicant’s own assertions, 
he has provided no evidence that would persuade us that the 
characterization of his discharge is in error and not in 
accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements of 
the discharge manual.  Therefore, we agree with the 
recommendation of Air Force offices of primary responsibility 
and the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as the 
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the 
victim of an error or injustice.  Additionally, there is 
insufficient evidence in the applicant’s record to verify that 
he meets the criterion for, or was recommended for, award of the 
Purple Heart.  Therefore, in the absence of such evidence, we 
find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this 
portion of the application and relief beyond that already 
granted administratively is not warranted.  Therefore, we find 
no basis to favorably consider 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 13 May 2014, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603:

		, Panel Chair
		, Member
		, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-02709 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149 dated 28 May 2013, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Record.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dtd 15 September 2013.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPAPP, dtd 29 October 2013.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dtd 2 January 2014.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR Med Consultant, dtd 20 March 2014.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dtd 4 April 2014.