RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-05637
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His honorable discharge be changed to a medical discharge.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and other problems 
and needs an exit physical.  His misconduct and separation was 
related to his PTSD.  
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his DD 
Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; DD 
Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed 
Forces of the United States, and AF Form 100, Request and 
Authorization for Separation.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 18 Jan 01, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.  
On 6 May 05, the applicant pulled his weapon on a fellow military 
member while in a deployed environment.  For this misconduct, he 
received non-judicial punishment under the provisions of Article 
15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), reduction in grade to 
airman first class, which was to be suspended through 26 Nov 05, 
after which time it would be remitted without further action, 
unless sooner vacated, forfeiture of $300 pay per month for 
2 months and 14 days extra duty, and a reprimand.  
On 10 May 05, the applicant was given a commander-directed mental 
health evaluation for self-mutilation and inappropriate 
gesture/drawing of his fire arm.  
On 23 Nov 05, the applicant was diagnosed by a clinical 
psychologist with an Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood, 
Resolved.  The evaluation reflected an absence of any mental 
health disorder that should have been adjudicated in a Medical 
Evaluation Board (MEB).  Further, it was noted that a 
recommendation for an administrative separation for mental health 
reasons may not be considered because no disorder was present that 
would affect the applicant’s ability to function effectively in a 
military environment.  
On 22 May 06, the applicant’s Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 
(3P0X1, Security Forces) was permanently withdrawn. 
On 11 Sep 06, the applicant was notified by his commander of his 
intent to recommend his discharge from the Air Force for 
Misconduct: Other Serious Offenses and for Unsatisfactory 
Performance: Failure to perform duties properly under the 
provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Discharge of Airmen, 
Chapter 5, paragraphs 5.52.3 and 5.26.1.1.  Before recommending 
discharge the commander noted he reviewed the positive and 
negative aspects of the applicant’s entire military record.  
However, based on the severity of the charge he believed the 
applicant’s separation was in the best interest of the Air Force.  
The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of 
discharge.  
On 12 Sep 06, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant 
waived his right to submit a statement on his own behalf.  
On 15 Sep 06, the Acting Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) reviewed the 
case and found it legally sufficient to support discharge and 
recommended to the wing commander that the applicant be discharged 
for both misconduct and unsatisfactory performance and that he 
receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without 
the offer of probation or rehabilitation.  The discharge authority 
approved the applicant’s discharge.  
On 21 Sep 06, the applicant was discharged for Misconduct with 
service characterized as general (under honorable conditions) in 
the grade of senior airman.  He served five years, eight months 
and three days of total active service. 
On 22 Sep 06, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) granted him 
service-connection for PTSD (claimed as depression with associated 
sleep disorder, insomnia) with a compensable disability rating of 
30 percent.  On 26 Jun 07, his PTSD disability rating was 
increased to 100 percent.  
On 21 Jan 09, the applicant submitted a DD Form 293, requesting he 
be separated under physical disability provisions.  On 4 Mar 09, 
the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) notified the 
applicant that based on his request, a review by the AFDRB was 
inappropriate and that he should submit his application to the 
AFBCMR.  Further, the AFDRB informed the applicant that should he 
elect to proceed with his application, he needed to amend his DD 
Form 293 and request that his narrative reason for separation be 
changed.  
On 26 Mar 13, the applicant submitted a DD Form 293 for an upgrade 
of discharge to honorable.  
According to AFHQ Form 0-2077, AFDRB Hearing Record dated 2 Aug 
13, the applicant was offered, but declined, a personal appearance 
before the board and requested that the review be completed based 
on the available service record.  The AFDRB considered and granted 
the applicant’s appeal.  The AFDRB found mitigating evidence that 
the applicant was suffering from PTSD related to three deployments 
and several untimely deaths in his family.  The AFDRB concluded 
the applicant’s mental health condition was serious enough to 
impair his ability to conform to military standards and found it 
inequitable that he received a discharge for misconduct.  The 
AFDRB concluded that the applicant’s overall quality of service is 
more accurately reflected by an honorable discharge and the reason 
for the discharge is more accurately described as Secretarial 
Authority under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code 
(USC), 1553.  
On 30 Aug 13, the applicant was notified by the DVA of their 
intent to reduce his PTSD disability rating from 100 percent to 
70 percent.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The Medical 
Consultant opines that competent military mental health providers 
determined the applicant did not have a mental disorder warranting 
a MEB, in accordance with AFI 48-123, Medical Examinations and 
Standards; nor did he have a mental disorder warranting 
administrative discharge under AFI 36-3208, at the time of his 
release from service.  Nevertheless, the evidence indicated the 
applicant was diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder with Depressed 
Mood and Bereavement in May 05, and that he carried this diagnosis 
at least until 21 Sep 05, when the first of the two was determined 
“Resolved.”  During the applicant’s discharge physical 
examination, conducted nearly a year later, he made no reference 
to an existing mental disorder.  In addition, the profile 
restrictions assigned to him while under the care for Adjustment 
Disorder with Depressed Mood and Bereavement were lifted in Nov 
05, and he was returned to worldwide qualified status; at which 
time his mental health providers concluded he had “No Diagnosis” 
to depict his final mental health assessment.  Further, there was 
no evidence the applicant required or received military mental 
health care through Calendar Year 2006 (CY 2006).
Even though the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (DVA) has granted 
the applicant service-connection and compensation for a number of 
medical conditions, but particularly PTSD, the evidence does not 
reflect PTSD was an unfitting condition at the time of the 
applicant’s release from military service.  Moreover, even though 
the DVA has assigned service-connection and compensation for PTSD, 
effective the day after the applicant’s date of discharge, the 
Board is reminded that operating under Title 38, USC, the DVA is 
authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition 
determined service-incurred or aggravated, without regard to its 
demonstrated or proven impact upon a service members 
retainability, fitness to serve, narrative reason for discharge, 
or length of intervening time since discharge.
Finally, the consultant is aware that several mental disorders 
share overlapping signs and symptoms, some which are compensable 
and some which are not.  The Medical Consultant is not in a 
position to declare that the applicant was issued an errant 
diagnosis during his military service or that his pattern of 
behavior should have been attributed to a compensable mental 
disorder.  Nevertheless, the Medical Consultant concedes the 
merits of a medical separation warrants further discussion, i.e., 
a de facto “dual-action’ review, noting that the AFDRB upgraded 
the applicant’s discharge characterization with a stated position 
that PTSD caused him to pull the weapon on a fellow service 
member; which contributed to the discharge action.  Although 
considered mitigating by the AFDRB for this particular serious 
act, the Medical Consultant found the service evidence 
insufficient to declare the existence of a mental disorder that 
was unfitting prior to the applicant’s release from service.  
The complete Medical Consultant 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 27 Jun 14, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  
As of this date, this office has not received a response. 


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.  We took 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case and do not find that it supports a 
determination that the applicant was improperly discharged.  The 
applicant has not provided sufficient evidence which would lead us 
to believe that at the time of his discharge, a physical condition 
existed that was determined by competent medical authority to be a 
physical disability which specifically rendered him unfit for 
continued military service.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion 
and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt the 
rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant 
has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in 
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
granting the relief sought in this application. 


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 AFBCMR Docket Number 
BC-2013-05637 in Executive Session on 28 Aug 14, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, undated, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 10 Jun 14.
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Jun 14.



5