RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-03078
	INDEX CODE: 108.01 108.02			  110.02 134.01 126.04
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.	The Department of Defense Inspector General (DODIG) be directed to investigate his allegations of reprisal because he informed a superior of his intent to contact the Air Force IG.

2.	The Letter of Reprimand, dated 27 Nov 00, be voided.

3.	His placement on the Control Roster (CR) and the establishment of an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) on 1 Dec 00 be set aside.

4.	The nonjudicial punishment imposed by Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on 19 Dec 00, be set aside.

5.	His DD Form 214 be corrected to reflect E-4, his highest grade held, rather than his demoted grade of E-3, and that he was discharged under other than Chapter 61, Title 10, USC, as directed by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC).  [Note: This was, in fact, directed by SAFPC but apparently was never accomplished. However, in Exhibit J, the applicant also asks that he be promoted and his highest grade held be reflected as E-5.]

6.	He be rated and medically retired for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Behcet’s disease [See Exhibit E.]

7.	He be remunerated for a “. . . 400-level management course with Park University during [his] last months in the Air Force . . . under the Acquisition Professional Development Program . . .” and be awarded a decoration.

[8.	Note: Although not specifically included in the requested corrections, the referral Enlisted Performance Reports for the periods closing 28 Feb 99, 8 Jan 00, 7 Nov 00, and 7 Jun 01, are related actions.]

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He suffered tremendous psychological trauma, command mistreatment, unjust punishments and reprisal.  Malicious members of his command sought out creative ways to get rid of him, such as being ordered to write a “letter of apology” for crimes he did not commit, charged with extortion for informing a superior of his intent to contact the IG, and charged with being absent without leave (AWOL) when he never was.  The DODIG ignored his efforts to contact them.  His incorrect DD Form 214 may preclude him from obtaining Federal employment and, due to his disability, he has not been able to obtain gainful employment since his 2001 discharge.  He could use the hundreds of dollars taken away from him in punishment and needs to believe there is justice in this world in order to heal.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The following information was extracted from official documents supplied by the applicant (Exhibits A, E, H, J and K), his medical and military personnel records, the SAFPC dual-action file, and the XXth Wing IG Complaint Analysis (all at Exhibit B), which is not releasable to the applicant.

The applicant was admitted to a psychiatric hospital in 1991 when he was around 12 years old because of relationship problems he was having with his family.  However, he was not medicated.  Psychiatric evaluations revealed the applicant may have experienced a tumultuous, possibly abusive, childhood as well as frequent family fights as a young child involving his father, stepmother, and stepsiblings.  His biological mother was a diagnosed schizophrenic and institutionalized, which raised concerns given he was exhibiting behaviors appearing to mimic schizophrenic behavior.  He was moody, disobedient, hostile towards his younger stepsiblings, and acting bizarrely.  He was frequently the instigator of difficulty and acknowledged he pushed his stepmother’s “buttons.”  He was relatively slow to adapt to the unit routine, showing some inability to comprehend and behave by rules well known to all.  Evaluation showed, in part, that he was extremely bright but decidedly deficient in his capacity to interpret social cues and to respond appropriately with gestures, emotions and behaviors of his own.  Later, when the applicant was in high school, he apparently was made a ward of the state after his father, an alcoholic, threatened him. 

Prior to enlisting, a military psychiatric evaluation on 11 Mar 97 noted the applicant’s hospitalization at age 12, found no evidence of depression, affective disorder, or thought disorder and reported a normal neuropsychic impression. 

As a result, the applicant received a waiver and enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 18 Jun 97.  He was promoted to the grade of senior airman (SRA) on 18 Jun 00.  During the period in question, the applicant was assigned as a contract apprentice/specialist first to the XXth Contracting Squadron (XXCS) at Kadena AFB, Japan, and then to the XXth Contracting Squadron (XXCS) at Laughlin AFB, TX.

The applicant apparently experienced repeated injuries from bicycle wrecks in a short period of time.  After a bicycle accident in Mar 98, which required some facial/dental reconstructive surgery, he began having night sweats, flashbacks, and nightmares of childhood abuse. 

An 18 Aug 98 medical entry reported the applicant’s concern about having HIV from contact with prostitutes in Okinawa.  Tests were negative.

A 9 Nov 98 Mental Health record by the Psychological Services at Kadena AB, Japan, reported the applicant complained of night sweats, diarrhea, loss of appetite and weight, poor concentration and difficulties sleeping.  Diagnosis was deferred but a commander-directed evaluation would be recommended.
 
On 10 Dec 98, he underwent a commander-directed mental health evaluation for inappropriate and strange behavior leading to problems at work such as an inability to take orders.  The applicant complained of difficulty sleeping, night sweats, carpel tunnel syndrome, and fatigue.  Diagnosis was deferred.

Further diagnostic evaluation on 5 Jan 99 reported the applicant claimed to be a concert pianist and knew 12 foreign languages; however, when pinned with specifics, he appeared to have overstated his abilities.  An 8 Jan 99 evaluation reported the applicant would be returned to duty with close supervision.  He was told that lying and discussing inappropriate topics at work would not be tolerated and could result in his dismissal from the Air Force.  He would continue to be monitored and the mental health clinic (MHC) would exchange information with the applicant’s command.

On 4 Mar 99, the Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period 18 Jun 97 through 28 Feb 99 was referred to the applicant.  He was marked unacceptable in his on/off duty conduct and given an overall rating of 3 (consider for promotion).  The additional rater concurred with the rater and indicated he did not receive rebuttal comments.  Evaluator comments indicated the applicant was counseled for integrity problems, falsely relaying information to superiors, and disrespect.

The applicant alleged he was sexually assaulted on 20 Sep 99 at the off-base residence of an AAFES contract employee on Okinawa.  [Note: A Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) evaluation on 11 Apr 03, after the applicant’s discharge in 2001, reported he took piano lessons at an extension university in Okinawa.  The “piano professor” befriended the applicant and would invite him over to his [the instructor’s] house for dinner.  On one such occasion, this individual placed his hand on the applicant’s “crotch.”  The applicant stated he got up and left, that both were fully clothed, and there was no further activity or contact between them after the incident.]  The applicant indicated he reported the crime to the XXth Security Forces Squadron, the XX Field Investigative Squadron, the Okinawa City and Kadena Police Departments, the XXth Wing Judge Advocate General, and the XXth Contracting Squadron commander.  However, the Air Force apparently did not have jurisdiction in the matter and court action could not be taken against the individual until the Japanese Police completed their investigation.

On 24 Sep 99, the MHC reported the applicant’s depression and anxiety relative to “a sex harassment incident.”  Follow-up visits indicated he continued to experience interpersonal problems, night sweats and nightmares.  A 3 Nov 99 MHC intake form of the applicant’s walk-in visit had a provisional assessment of adjustment disorder with mixed emotions.  A 6 Nov 99 psychotherapy evaluation noted discussions of family, relationships, and recent assault, with recommended follow-up sessions.  A 17 Dec 99 therapy session “discussed upsetting event, identified the distortions, and examined 3 techniques to untwist the distortions.”
 
On 13 Jan 00, the applicant requested a six-month out-of-cycle DEROS extension to his current location until the investigation was completed and the issue was brought to trial and resolved.  However, the commander recommended disapproval.

Also on 13 Jan 00, the EPR for the period 1 Mar 99 through 8 Jan 00 was referred to the applicant.  He was marked unacceptable in his on/off duty conduct and given an overall rating of 3. Comments indicated the applicant needed to pay closer attention to detail, that he “often forgets the truth until questioned several times,” and he was a “supervisor’s challenge.”  The additional rater concurred with the rater and indicated he did not receive rebuttal comments.

On 21 Mar 00, the applicant was transferred to the XXCS at Laughlin AFB, TX.

On 26 April 00, the applicant received a Record of Individual Counseling (RIC) for unprofessional behavior.  He had become upset when, after studying the night before for a scheduled test, no one was available to administer the test on 25 Apr 00.  The supervisor also noted that, in less than five weeks, the applicant had made numerous complaints and demonstrated irresponsibility, immaturity, and unprofessionalism.  Further, the applicant had been counseled on his attitude, lack of maturity and good judgment, and told to learn to “pick his fights.”  The applicant “strongly” disagreed with the supervisor’s assessment. 

On 19 Jul 00, he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for sending an unofficial political opinion email to all 47CS personnel on 4 Jul 00 and stating on 7 Jul 00 that he was “wasting our time” by attending a mandatory briefing because he had attended previous training.

On 29 Aug 00, the applicant applied to marry a Japanese national.

An AF Form 1137 indicates that on 12 Sep 00 the applicant failed to follow a direct order, failed to request advance leave before submitting a leave form, conveyed a threat to his flight chief, and failed to return to duty from leave at the appointed date and time.  The form advised an LOR was issued on 8 Nov 00 and the applicant was placed on the CR.  The UCMJ articles cited as violated were 86 (failure to go) and 127 (extortion). 

A Wilford Hall Medical Center (WHMC) medical entry, dated 14 Sep 00, reported a follow-up visit for the applicant’s night sweats and other symptoms.  The entry noted no apparent infectious etiology after extensive work-up and “must consider Behcet’s disease.”

On 20 Sep 00, the applicant received another RIC for taking a long lunch break without notification during which he took a nap, apparently because he was drowsy from medications.

On 27 Nov 00, he received an LOR for failing to write a letter of apology on 15 Sep 00 with specific items included regarding health information he relayed; failing to request advance leave on 4 Oct 00 before submitting a leave form to his supervisor; conveying what he called a “friendly threat” to his flight chief; and failing to show up for duty at the appointed time and date when he returned from leave.  The commander indicated the applicant had every right to go to the IG at any time, as they had discussed.  The commander also advised that she was withdrawing the previous LOR issued on 8 Nov 00, establishing a UIF, and placing him on the CR.  The cited UCMJ violations were Articles 86 (failure to go) and 92 (failure to obey an order).  The applicant provided a rebuttal on 1 Dec 00, asserting the health information he relayed was correct as he understood it and that the commander knew he would be late returning from leave due to an airline delay. AF Form 1058, UIF Action, dated 1 Dec 00 cites violation of UCMJ Articles 86 and 127.  [Note: AFLSA/JAJM acknowledges in their advisory that the UIF incorrectly listed Article 127 (extortion) as one of the articles the applicant violated and contends this is a typographical error.]

On 1 Dec 00, the applicant was placed on the CR and a UIF was established for violation of UCMJ Articles 86 (failure to go) and 127 (extortion).

On 5 Dec 00, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for failing to obey a lawful order to return or destroy letters of recommendation on or around 1 Sep 00 and wrongfully submitting the letters of recommendation in his enlisted retraining package.  After consulting with counsel and waiving his right to a trial by court-martial, the applicant requested a personal appearance and submitted a written presentation.  On 19 Dec 00, his commander found him guilty, reduced him from SRA to airman first class (A1C), imposed 25 days of extra duty, and reprimanded him.  The applicant appealed, and the commander provided a point-by-point rebuttal on 21 Dec 00.  The appellate authority denied the applicant’s appeal on 3 Jan 01 and the Article 15 was filed in his UIF.

In a 12 Jan 01 Statement of Medical Condition, the Life Skills Flight commander diagnosed the applicant as having clinical syndromes of adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, and personality disorders/traits/features of immaturity and narcissism.  A physical disorder of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) was also made.  The Flight commander recommended the applicant for administrative discharge as he had not responded to treatment for adjustment problems.

On 17 Jan 01, the EPR for the period 9 Jan 00 through 7 Nov 00 was referred to the applicant.  He was marked inefficient in duty performance and unacceptable in his on/off duty conduct.  The overall rating was 1 (not recommended for promotion).  Comments included references to unprofessional behavior, failure to adjust, and a lack of initiative and attention to detail.  The additional rater considered the applicant’s rebuttal but agreed with the rater.

On 18 Jan 01, the commander notified the applicant of her intent to recommend discharge with a general characterization.  The letter cited the Article 15, the LOR, the two RICs, LOC, UIF and CR actions.  On 23 Jan 01, the applicant and his area defense counsel (ADC) provided rebuttals.  The ADC asserted the discharge should be processed as a dual-action.  He noted the applicant was legally advised not to include any incriminating statements in the “letter of apology,” that the threat referenced in the LOR surrounded the possibility of his contacting the IG, and the Article 127 violation on the UIF reflected the offense of extortion, which was not documented in the discharge package. Further, the package does not sustain a general discharge.

On 29 Jan 01, the commander recommended general discharge for minor disciplinary infractions without probation and rehabilitation (P&R).  The commander described the efforts made by herself, the first sergeant and the supervisor to rehabilitate the applicant, as well as previous opportunities offered to him to be discharged under honorable conditions.

In a 30 Jan 01 Report of Medical Assessment, the applicant indicated that his CTS, PTSD, depression, anxiety, and other symptoms had been exacerbated by his military service.  He also indicated he had been referred to WHMC “several times for possible Behcet’s-related symptoms.”

On 7 Feb 01, a legal review found the case sufficient for administrative discharge action.  The review noted the 12 Jan 01 letter from the Life Skills commander recommending discharge under mental disorders, but believed discharge for misconduct was more appropriate.  The review determined the applicant’s overall record was not meritorious and a general discharge without P&R was recommended. 

A 20 Feb 01 Letter of Admonishment (LOA) admonished the applicant for failing to pack up his personal effects at his old desk by close of business on 16 Feb 01, as ordered on 14 Feb 01. 

On 22 Feb 01, the XXFTW commander directed the applicant’s general discharge for a pattern of misconduct without P&R.

A Narrative Summary for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB), dated 27 Feb 01, reported the applicant’s psychiatric evaluation at WHMC on 7 Feb 01 related to problems with nightmares, flashbacks and heightened anxiety related to childhood sexual abuse.  The applicant had received a medical work-up in 1998 for night sweats, but had not revealed his abuse, nightmares or flashbacks. He eventually told a chaplain at Laughlin of his abuse, nightmares and flashbacks, which resulted in his referral to WHMC.  The psychiatrist determined that a portion of the applicant’s PTSD symptoms were the result of trauma prior to entry into the Air Force, that the sexual assault in 1999 exacerbated his symptoms but was not solely responsible for his current presentation, and that he was significantly impaired by his symptoms even prior to the assault.  Medical separation, with continued psychotherapy and medication, was recommended.

On 6 Mar 01, the MEB recommended referral to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) for PTSD, marked, considerable, and bilateral CTS. 

The commander provided an evaluation on 9 Mar 01, advising the applicant had a medical profile for CTS, which limited some of his duties and his ability to deploy.  The commander asserted the 
applicant had not performed the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating and that he was able to perform some duties but did not perform them.

An IPEB convened on 16 Mar 01 and found the PTSD was unfitting but not compensable and ratable because it existed prior to service (EPTS) based on the applicant’s history of similar mental findings since 1991 and did not sustain permanent service aggravation (PSA). Discharge under other than Chapter 61 was recommended.  The applicant did not agree with the findings and, on 23 Mar 01, demanded a Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB).

On 23 Mar 01, the applicant submitted a reprisal complaint to the XXth Flying Training Wing (XXFTW) IG, alleging in part that the XXCS Acting First Sergeant and Superintendent reprised against him for submitting congressional complaints by “misplacing” his assignment personnel notice, which would have allowed him either to request an extension of his present assignment or decline a projected assignment.

The FPEB, convened on 19 Apr 01, concurred with the IPEB findings and recommendations.  The applicant did not testify but his allegation that a sexual assault in 1999 permanently aggravated his condition was noted.  However, the FPEB opined that his EPTS condition was not permanently aggravated by his military service. The applicant disagreed with the FPEB’s recommendation.

On 3 May 01, the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) initiated a formal rebuttal regarding the FPEB on behalf of the applicant to the SAFPC.

On 21 May 01, the administrative discharge action was deferred pending the outcome of required dual-action processing.

On 7 Jun 01, the EPR for the period 8 Nov 00 through 7 Jun 01 was referred to the applicant.  He was marked unsatisfactory in all seven performance factors.  The rater cited an LOA, three LOCs, the LOR and the Article 15. The overall rating was 1.  The additional rater agreed with the rater and indicated that rebuttal comments were requested but not received within the required period. 

On 12 Jun 01, SAFPC voted to “discontinue administrative separation based upon the relatively minor nature of the disciplinary infractions and the clear link between these infractions and the unsuiting and unfitting conditions.”  On 13 Jun 01, SAFPC concurred with the IPEB and FPEB findings and recommendations that the applicant be discharged under other than Chapter 61, that his mental health condition was permanent, relatively stable and EPTS without PSA.  They concluded his personality disorder was the principle aggravating factor in both his disciplinary and mental health problems and, since it was the primary reason for separation, chose that venue over an administrative punitive discharge.  SAFPC also directed the applicant’s highest grade held (SRA/E-4) be restored at the time of discharge.

On 15 Jun 01, the applicant was honorably discharged for disability, EPTS, after 4 years and 15 days of active service. The Remarks section of the DD Form 214 indicates “The Board also elected to restore the Highest Grade Held for the member’s rank at the time of discharge;” however, despite this and the SAFPC ruling, the applicant was discharged in the grade of A1C/E-3, rather than SRA/E-4.

On 19 Jun 01, the XXWG completed a Complaint Analysis of the applicant’s 23 Mar 01 complaint. Due to the lapse of time, the 18WG found it extremely difficult to determine what exactly transpired and who did what and when. However, based on the available facts, the XXWG found no reprisal.  On 20 Jun 01, the XXWG IG advised XXXXXXX /IGQ that a reprisal investigation was not warranted on the applicant’s case.

A 28 May 02 Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Compensation and Pension Exam reported, in part, the applicant showed no sign of any major general medical conditions, obsessed about the piano teacher who made sexual advances to him, could have an underlying personality disorder, displayed symptoms of PTSD from events prior to and during military service, was anxious and socially isolated.  The report concluded that, prior to military service, the applicant did suffer from a conduct disorder and displayed schizotypal personality features, but did not suffer from PTSD. The original trauma perhaps created a vulnerability, but the trauma in the service created the PTDS.  The diagnosis was PTSD, and schizotypal personality disorder with probable additional borderline features. 

According to the applicant’s emails to the DODIG, on 12 and 18 Jan 03 he inquired about the status of his complaint to the XXFTW IG.

A 22 Sep 03 DVA evaluation determined, as per the available documentation and applying the internationally agreed diagnostic criteria, there was not enough evidence to say or even suspect the applicant had Behcet’s disease.  Further, review of the entire case file showed there was no physician who actually saw the genital lesions.  The applicant was found to be physically healthy.

A DVA rheumatology consultation on 30 Dec 03, showed the preliminary diagnosis was based on the applicant’s report of a significant history of recurrent oral and genital ulceration dating back to initial concerns he had about being infected with HIV due to sexual promiscuity.  He also reported a brief episode of vision loss with eye irritation and weight loss in 1998.  He also indicated his sores usually healed by the time he saw a physician.  At the time of the evaluation, the physical examination was normal without evidence of physical signs of Behcet’s disease.  Based on the history of recurrent oral and genital ulceration and the applicant’s claim of rectal ulcers with bleeding, a colonoscopy and biopsy were recommended to rule out other ulcers in the intestinal tract and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).  The applicant, however, was reluctant to pursue this at the DVA and preferred to do this privately.

On 27 Jan 04, XXXXXXX/IGQ, in response to the applicant’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request attached IG records deemed responsive to his request [see Exhibit H].  The excerpts appear to be from the XXth Security Forces Squadron, dated 4 Jun 01, and indicate the applicant apparently was the subject of an investigation to see if he had put up fliers regarding the alleged sexual assault of a military member by a third country contract employee.  Kadena did not have jurisdiction because the assault occurred at the employee’s off-base residence.  As a result, the Japanese police investigated the incident.  However, the Japanese police “. . . could not find any evidence to indicate whether the assault actually occurred.”

A DVA medical record progress note dated 21 May 04 reported the applicant stopped taking medication and developed ulcers on his lower lip, back of throat and penis.  An exam in Sep 03 denied Behcet’s but since that time he had a diagnosis of probable Behcet’s syndrome.  The applicant demanded pictures be taken.

The applicant had a combined compensable DVA rating of 80% for PTSD, CTS in the right and left wrists, tinnitus, disfigurement of head, neck or face, and migraine headaches, all service-connected.  The applicant supplied a 16 Jul 04 DVA rating awarding him 100% disability rating for service-connected PTSD, which the DVA determined had worsened after the applicant’s discharge.  He also provided a 3 Aug 04 DVA Rheumatology report which notes, in part, that, “He fulfills 1990 international criteria for Behcet’s.” (See Exhibit K).

Additional medical details are provided in the applicant’s medical records at Exhibits A and B, in the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation at Exhibit F, and the DVA examinations submitted by the applicant at Exhibits J and K.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM notes that accepting Article 15 proceedings is simply a choice of forum, not an admission of guilt.  Set aside action is not normally considered a rehabilitation tool and commanders should not routinely set aside punishment or use it as a reward for a member who merely avoids further misconduct.  The commander in this case clearly considered all of the information the applicant provided.  The applicant’s rebuttal did not address his responsibility in the matter and discussed many extraneous matters.  The commander addressed, in writing, each of the applicant’s rebuttal issues and the appellate authority denied the applicant’s appeal.  AFLSA/JAJM acknowledges the UIF incorrectly listed Article 127 (extortion) as one of the articles the applicant violated, and this appears to be a typographical error.  The applicant provides no new justification to eliminate the LOR, which does not allude to extortion or reprisal for the applicant’s comment to go to the IG.  Instead, it specifically reiterates his rights to go to the IG if desired.  This case illustrates the difficulties in addressing the factual issues involved in administrative disciplinary actions.  Commanders on the scene have first-hand access to facts and a unique perspective for the needs of their units.  Unless shown to be either arbitrary or capricious, or clearly erroneous or unjust, a commander’s findings should not be set aside.  The basis of the applicant’s request for relief is insufficient to warrant setting aside the Article 15 or the LOR and does not demonstrate an equitable basis for relief.  Therefore, denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant notes the DD Form 214 does not reflect SAFPC’s direction that he be discharged in the rank of E-4.  He was given an unlawful order to write a confession, which was a violation of his constitutional rights.  The capricious AWOL charge is a clear injustice in that he did take leave properly and this charge was in reprisal for his protected disclosure.  There is no proof supporting the charge he was ordered to return/destroy 33 letters of recommendation, one of which was from the commander.  If he had been given such an order, he would have been stupid to give the commander’s letter, with personal contact information, to an Air Force Band conductor.  Further, he was not even located there during part of the alleged period of offense.  An order to destroy 33 letters of recommendation, many penned by friends and family, would be an unlawful and unreasonable seizure, which he would have immediately protested.  He was maliciously charged with extortion, not “erroneously” as the advisory alleges.  His Air Force psychologist of three years pointed out that at least 75% of the disciplinary actions were related to the PTSD resulting in his medical discharge.  He provides a medical entry from the Sep 2000 timeframe that Behcet’s disease must be considered as the cause of the disturbing medical problems that began while he was stationed in Japan, a nation that leads the world in Behcet’s disease.  This disorder causes psychiatric problems, affects the central nervous system, the intestinal tract and the heart--all of which were clearly documented in his military medical records.  He has recent documentation of painful arrhythmia, which should have been addressed by the medical boards. However, his command exerted pressure on the medical boards.  If SAFPC had not denied the Air Force’s attempted discharge for misconduct, he would have been denied invaluable medical benefits for this horrible disease.  He asks for a complete overturn of all punishments as a humanitarian act.  He apologizes if he caused anyone to dislike him, but he pestered so many doctors because he was afraid something was terribly wrong with his body.  He should have been rated and retired for Behcet’s disease, PTSD and CTS.

A complete copy of applicant’s response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant notes the issue of whether the applicant had Behcet’s disease was addressed during a Sep 03 DVA examination, which determined there was not enough evidence to even suspect the applicant has Behcet’s disease.  The Consultant provides details and analysis of the applicant’s military and DVA medical records and finds no evidence to support a diagnosis of Behcet’s disease either in service or following discharge.  The neuropsychiatric complications of Behcet’s disease do not affect all patients with the condition and are the result of active inflammatory disease affecting the substance of the tissue and the blood vessels in the brain.  Action and disposition in this case were proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives.  Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the Consultant’ evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_____________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL EVALUATION:

In a letter dated 28 May 04, the applicant takes great exception to the Medical Consultant’s evaluation and, in an 8-page statement, outlines why he believes his PTSD is not EPTS but instead caused by his military service.  He contends he should also be medically retired for service-connected/aggravated Behcet’s disease.  He provides photographs of various parts of his body as well as other attachments, and requests, among other things, that the AFBCMR obtain a supporting statement in his behalf and a second medical opinion.  In his 28 May 04 submission, the applicant also advised he was preparing a “new” claim requesting his PTSD be designated as service-connected, rather than EPTS, and he be given a medical retirement. 

However, as these issues have been raised in and are directly related to his original application/rebuttal currently being processed, in a letter dated 15 Jun 04, the AFBCMR Staff requested that he forward this “new” case directly to the AFBCMR for inclusion with his current case.  Otherwise, he could request his case be temporarily withdrawn until he was ready to proceed with his “new” claim.  The AFBCMR letter also advised him that the Board is not an investigative body and does not obtain supporting statements in behalf of applicants.  As such, his request for the AFBCMR to forward his letter to Colonel XXXXX in his behalf could not be honored and he should directly contact the appropriate individuals for any statements relative to his case.

A complete copy of the applicant’s rebuttal, with attachments, and the AFBCMR letter are at Exhibits H and I, respectively.

Apparently the applicant had already forwarded a DD Form 149, dated 15 Jun 04, to SAF/MRBR, the AFBCMR’s intake office at Randolph AFB.  That submission, with attachments, was subsequently forwarded the AFBCFMR for inclusion in this appeal.

The applicant provides a DD Form 149 with a 10-page statement and 20 attachments, some of which are already part of his military records and/or his previous submissions.  He includes a 27 May 04 letter from a psychologist who has seen the applicant since Dec 01 and who indicates that, while he cannot comment whether the applicant suffered from PTSD symptoms before the military, he can attest that the presence of PTSD symptoms were clearly related to events that occurred during military service.  The applicant also asks for promotion to E-5, that this be reflected as his highest grade held, and remuneration for contracting courses he took in 2001.

The applicant’s 28 May 04 response and his latest DD Form 149, with attachments, are provided at Exhibit J. 

In a letter dated 23 Jul 04, the applicant forwarded a 16 Jul 04 DVA rating of 100% for service-connected PTSD.  In a letter dated 7 Aug 04, he also provided a 3 Aug 04 DVA Rheumatology report noting, “He fulfills 1990 international criteria for Behcet’s.”  These documents are provided at Exhibit K.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.	The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.	The application was timely filed.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We note SAFPC concurred with the IPEB and FPEB findings and recommendations that the applicant’s mental health condition was permanent, relatively stable, EPTS without PSA, and he should be discharged under other than Chapter 61.  SAFPC concluded the record strongly suggested the applicant’s personality disorder was the principle aggravating factor in both his disciplinary and mental health problems and, since it was the primary reason for separation, chose that venue over an administrative punitive discharge.  SAFPC also directed the applicant’s highest grade held (SRA/E-4) be restored at the time of discharge; however, the DD Form 214 erroneously reflected the applicant’s highest grade as A1C/E-3.  After thoroughly reviewing the extensive documentation pertaining to this case and carefully considering the applicant’s numerous contentions, we ultimately find this is the only aspect of the applicant’s records that warrants administrative correction.  In reaching this conclusion, we considered the following issues.

4.	Although the Air Force rates disabilities in accordance with the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities, the Air Force and the DVA are separate federal agencies and operate under different laws and policies.  Title 10, USC, Chapter 61, which governs the Air Force system, first requires a determination of unfitness, and then that the degree of unfitness be based upon the member’s condition at the time of permanent disposition---not upon possible future events.  Further, while a military member’s various medical problems may be considered, only those that render him unfit for military service will be rated.  Title 38, USC, which governs the DVA system, allows awarding compensation for acquired and altered conditions that affect a person’s life style and future employability. This is why a military member can receive a disability rating from the DVA without being rated by the Air Force, or receive a higher rating from the DVA than the one awarded by the Air Force.  In this regard, we, like SAFPC, are convinced the applicant’s personality disorder was the fundamental cause of most of his difficulties. This disorder is not a compensable or ratable disorder under Chapter 61.  The applicant has a documented history of pre-service psychological problems, and he manifested emotional and behavioral difficulties before the Sep 99 incident.  While we may not agree with the DVA’s finding of PSA PTSD, under their statutory authority, it is their prerogative to make such a finding under Title 38.  In our view, the documentation seems to indicate the applicant’s underlying personality disorder was contributory to much of his overreaction and inappropriate behavior.  The 3 Aug 04 DVA report diagnosing Behcet’s was noted.  However, at the time of the applicant’s separation, those symptoms he manifested on active duty were not unfitting and the manifestations now diagnosed as Behcet’s occurring after discharge are responsive to medication.  A diagnosis of Behcet’s with these manifestations and medication would not be unfitting, ratable or compensable under the Air Force disability system.  The applicant has not demonstrated to our satisfaction that, at the time of his separation, his PTSD symptoms did not EPTS or were PSA, or that he had any disability 
that would warrant medical retirement or severance pay under Title 10, Chapter 61.  We believe the DVA is the appropriate avenue for the applicant’s treatment and compensation. 

5.	We are also unpersuaded by the applicant’s arguments that he has been victimized or suffered reprisal for contacting the IG and his Senator.  His commander advised him of his right to contact the IG and the XXWG IG found no reprisal investigation was warranted.  Although it is unfortunate the applicant suffered from a variety of maladies, we note at no time does he assume any responsibility for his own behavior, preferring instead to hold others culpable.  We agree with the legal reviews of this case, including the advisory opinion provided by AFLSA/JAJM, that the disciplinary actions taken against the applicant are supported by the evidence of record and are not overcome by the applicant’s articulate, but unconvincing, narrations.  As the applicant has not established the existence of an error or injustice, we find no compelling basis to void the LOR, the CR/UIF action, or the Article 15.  Given this conclusion, we see no grounds for voiding the referral EPRS, which we believe were appropriate to review in the totality of this petition even though the applicant did not specifically request their removal.  The applicant asks for remuneration for certain courses, but he submitted no evidence of what courses, if any, he completed at that time or whether they were officially approved under the Acquisition Professional Development Program as explained by the commander in paragraph 2.k. of her 21 Dec 00 point-by-point Article 15 appeal rebuttal. Given the disciplinary actions taken against him, which we have concluded were within the commander’s discretionary authority, the applicant does not make his case that he would have been promoted to a higher grade or awarded a decoration.  Therefore, these portions of the applicant’s appeal should also be denied.

6.	In the final analysis, the applicant has not shown he was improperly rated and discharged.  In Jun 01, SAFPC discontinued administrative action and directed the applicant be honorably discharged for PTSD, EPTS and without PSA, and that his highest grade held, SRA, be restored at the time of discharge.  The applicant was erroneously discharged as an A1C and the AFBCMR Staff will have HQ AFPC administratively correct this error.  The Air Force will provide the applicant either a DD Form 215 correcting the grade on the original DD Form 214, or a new DD Form 214 with the correct grade of SRA.

_________________________________________________________________

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 25 August 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-03078 was considered:

   Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Aug 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C. Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 1 Dec 03.
   Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Dec 03.
   Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Jan 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 26 Apr 04.
   Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Apr 04.
   Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant, dated 28 May 04, w/atchs & 
				   3 Jun 04 fax insert.
   Exhibit I. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Jun 04.
   Exhibit J. DD Form 149, dated 15 Jun 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit K. Letters, Applicant, dated 23 Jul & 7 Aug 04, 
				   w/atchs.