RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02797
		INDEX CODE:  100.03, 100.06, 
				      108.01
		COUNSEL:  

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His records be corrected to show that he was medically retired on 6 Mar 70 with a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Major Depressive Disorder, Dysthymic Disorder, and Panic Disorder without Agoraphobia.  

2.  In the alternative, his records be changed to reflect that he was discharged for medical reasons and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be corrected to reflect a code reflecting a medical condition.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was discharged in 1970 for reason of unsuitability/unfitness.  His medical record indicates as early as March 1969 that he was having physical symptoms of PTSD.  On 26 Aug 69 he had a severe case of the shakes and nervousness followed by tremors.  He could not eat and had spells of vomiting.  He was referred to psychiatric counseling.  His physical symptoms worsened and his performance at work was affected.  In addition, he was not provided rehabilitation according to his notice of discharge.  At that time, in late 1969 and early 1970, he was suffering from PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder, Dysthymic Disorder, and Panic Disorder without Agoraphobia.  He was diagnosed by the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) with PTSD in June 2002 and given a disability rating of 50 percent.

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement, extracts from his medical records; a copy of his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge; documents associated with his discharge processing, and DVA rating decision.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 11 Jul 67 and was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class.  

On 3 Dec 69, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to impose nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ for being disorderly on station.  He was advised of his rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of the notification on that same date.  He waived his right to demand trial by court-martial, accepted Article 15 proceedings, and did not provide matters on his own behalf to his commander.  On 3 Dec 69, after consideration of all the facts, his commander determined that he committed one or more of the offenses alleged and imposed punishment on the applicant.  He was reduced to the grade of airman ordered to forfeit $40 pay.  The applicant appealed his punishment to the appellate authority.  His appeal was denied.  

On 2 Feb 70, applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending that he be discharged from the Air Force in accordance with AFM 39-12, section A.  The specific reason for this action was a psychiatric consultation revealed that he had a passive-aggressive personality disorder.  He was advised of his rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of the notification on that same date.  A discharge evaluation officer interviewed the applicant and recommended that he be discharged and furnished an honorable discharge.  The applicant elected not to submit statements on his own behalf.  In a legal review of the case, the staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient. On 24 Feb 70, the discharge authority concurred with the recommendations and directed that he be discharged and furnished an Honorable Discharge certificate.  Applicant was discharged from the Air Force on 6 Mar 70 for unsuitability and was issued an RE code of "RE-2."  He served 2 years, 10 months, and 17 days on active duty.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends that the reason for discharge as unsuitability be changed and consideration given to changing the reason to medical.  The Medical Consultant states that it is plausible to view the pattern of behavior exhibited by the applicant as consistent with the beginnings of PTSD.  The episode in June 1969 when he fired his weapon in an unauthorized manner is suggestive of behavior consistent with fear stemming from his situation and could have been the initial manifestation of PTSD that later intensified to the point of psychological distress that manifested as irritability, anxiety and depressed mood.  While he had identifiable passive aggressive personality traits that contributed to his reduced ability to cope with his circumstances, the lack of behavioral problems prior to this time suggests that these traits may not today qualify for a diagnosis of personality disorder.  His performance report for the time he was in Vietnam does not suggest behavior consistent with a personality disorder.  

At that time in 1969, the diagnostic category of PTSD did not exist.  However, a diagnosis within the neurosis category was used by the psychiatrist (traumatic neurosis is a term that may have been used but it is not specifically listed).  The psychiatrist who evaluated the applicant sought to make a diagnosis of a neurosis but rather rendered diagnoses of a situational reaction (Adjustment Reaction of Adult Life) and a personality disorder.  The latter diagnoses are unsuiting and subject to administrative discharge and do not make an individual eligible for review in the disability system.  A diagnosis of neurosis would have been an unfitting diagnosis subject to medical disability evaluation.  The diagnosis of Adjustment Reaction of Adult Life is classified as a Transient Situational Disturbance that included "more or less transient disorders of any severity that occur in individuals without any apparent underlying mental disorders and that represent an acute reaction to overwhelming environmental stress.  If the patient has good adaptive capacity his symptoms usually recede as the stress diminishes.  However, if the symptoms persist after the stress is removed, the diagnosis of another mental disorder is indicated.  In his response to his Article 15, he states that his outward symptoms had improved, which may have reinforced the psychiatrist's impression of the transient nature of his symptoms.  

While in retrospect with today's knowledge, a diagnosis of PTSD can plausibly be applied to the applicant's symptoms developing during 1969; there is no clear evidence that the applicant was improperly diagnosed at the time with the facts as known at the time.  Given the total circumstances, if he had been given a diagnosis of neurosis, he would have likely been found unfit.  Due to the fact that he was performing his duties in a satisfactory manner albeit minimally, it is highly unlikely that the severity of his condition would have been rated at the level of a medical retirement.  Rather, separation with severance pay at 10 percent would have been the most likely outcome.  The Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial of the applicant's request.  DPPD states that his medical records include an examination conducted for the purpose of his administrative discharge.  The psychiatric portion of the review concluded he had a passive-aggressive personality disorder in addition to lacking interpersonal and adapting coping skills.  Examination pointed out that he did not suffer from any medical conditions, which would have qualified him for separation under the disability evaluation system.  He was subsequently qualified for general military service with no disqualifying physical profiles.  Policy states that certain conditions such as Personality and Adjustment Disorders do not constitute a physical disability under the provisions of federal disability laws and policy and are not ratable or compensable under Title 10.  The fact that he is currently being treated by the DVA does not automatically make him eligible for a military disability discharge/retirement.  In order to qualify for a disability retirement, he would have had to attain a serious or life threatening medical condition prior to his release from active duty.  It appears his request for a military disability retirement is primarily supported from his DVA rating which was effective 14 Aug 01, 32 years following his release from active duty.  The case file revealed no errors or irregularities in the administrative discharge process that would justify a change to his military records.  DPPD agrees with the Medical Consultant's medical aspect portion of the advisory but disagrees that his records should be changed to reflect a different discharge reason/authority and RE code since they correctly reflect what transpired at the time of his involuntary administrative discharge.  The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel responded and states that he concurs the recommendation of the Medical Consultant.  In further support of his request, applicant provided a sworn statement, an extract from his medical record, and a physician's letter.  His complete submission, 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.  The majority of the Board finds sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice that would warrant corrective action.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record the Board majority believes that during the time period in question, the applicant exhibited behavior that appears to have been consistent with characteristics associated with PTSD.  However, the diagnostic category of PTSD did not exist until after his discharge for unsuitability.  The Board noted that the Air Force evaluators opined different assessments of his diagnoses at the time.  The Board majority believes that the applicant has established reasonable doubt in this particular case and agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the BCMR medical consultant.   Accordingly, the Board majority believes it would be in the best interest of the Air Force and the applicant to resolve this matter in his favor.  Therefore, it is the Board majority's opinion that in order to provide him fair and equitable relief his records should be corrected as indicated below.  The Board considered the applicant's request that his records be corrected to reflect that he was medically retired; however, the Board majority does not believe that his condition at the time of his discharge was severe enough to warrant a disability rating higher than 10 percent. 

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

	a. On 5 March 1970, he was found unfit to perform the duties of his office, rank, grade, or rating by reason of physical disability, incurred while he was entitled to receive basic pay; that the diagnosis in his case was neurosis (other unspecified) DVA diagnostic code 9410, rated at 10%; that the compensable percentage was 10%; that the degree of impairment was permanent; that the disability was not due to intentional misconduct or willful neglect; that the disability was not incurred during a period of unauthorized absence; and that the disability was not received in the line of duty as a direct result of armed conflict or caused by an instrumentality of war.

	b. On 6 March 1970, he was not discharged for unsuitability, but on that date he was honorably discharged by reason of physical disability, with entitlement to disability severance pay.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 02-02797 in Executive Session on 29 Jan 03, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

By a majority vote, the Board voted to grant the request.  Mr voted to deny the applicant's request and did not desire to submit a minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Aug 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 23 Oct 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 27 Nov 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Dec 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Dec 02.

					

AFBCMR 02-02797

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

		a.  On 5 March 1970, he was found unfit to perform the duties of his office, rank, grade, or rating by reason of physical disability, incurred while he was entitled to receive basic pay; that the diagnosis in his case was neurosis (other unspecified) DVA diagnostic code 9410, rated at 10%; that the compensable percentage was 10%; that the degree of impairment was permanent; that the disability was not due to intentional misconduct or willful neglect; that the disability was not incurred during a period of unauthorized absence; and that the disability was not received in the line of duty as a direct result of armed conflict or caused by an instrumentality of war.

		b.  On 6 March 1970, he was not discharged for unsuitability, but on that date he was honorably discharged by reason of physical disability, with entitlement to disability severance pay.