RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:	BC-2008-01653 COUNSEL:	NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His honorable discharge be changed to a medical discharge or a medical retirement.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He did not have a personality disorder when he enlisted in military service. He was made aware of his personality disorder while he was appealing his Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) claim. The military was aware of his mental condition and did nothing about it prior to his discharge.

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of documents extracted from his military personnel and DVA records.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 15 Jul 68, the applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force. He was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant having assumed the grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Mar 73.

On 22 Aug 74, the applicant underwent a psychiatric assessment and the psychiatrist indicated the applicant represented an emotionally unstable personality with probable multiple substance abuse. On 24 Aug 74, another psychiatrist assessed the applicant as being emotionally unstable personality with impaired judgment and impulse control. A 30 Oct 74 psychiatric evaluation indicates the applicant was mentally responsible for his behavior and that he possessed sufficient mental capacity to understand and cooperate intelligently in any administrative proceedings which might involve him. Also, the applicant was found free of mental illness, defect, or derangement concerning his behavior to

distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right and refrain from wrong.

On 5 Nov 74, his commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for unsuitability. The specific reasons for the discharge action were five arrests by civil authorities, five  failures to report for duty and medical appointments, two incidences of being absent without leave (AWOL), being disrespectful to a superior officer, making a threat to do bodily harm to his superior officer, fellow service members and himself, and two occasions of resisting medical treatment.

His commander advised him of his rights in this matter.   On
6 Nov 74, he acknowledged receipt of the notification and, after consulting with legal counsel, he waived his rights associated with an administrative discharge board contingent upon him receiving an honorable discharge.

On 7 Nov 74, the legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support separation and recommended the applicant be furnished an honorable discharge.

On 20 Nov 74, the discharge authority directed the applicant be furnished an honorable discharge. The applicant was discharged on 27 Nov 74 and was credited with six years, four months, and six days of active service.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial, noting the applicant was discharged due to a medical condition that was unsuiting for continued military service, but was not considered compensable for processing under the disability evaluation system (DES). Although, the DVA has established that his Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is service connected, such a determination does not invalidate the clinical and behavioral assessments conducted at the time of his military service that reflected a medical condition that rendered him unsuitable for service and thus did not qualify him for processing through the DES. In addition no evidence was provided to reflect a connection between the applicant’s newly diagnosed PTSD and his previously diagnosed personality disorder. The applicant was evaluated by different mental health professionals, none of which found evidence of impending signs or symptoms of PTSD or any other compensable mental disorder at the time of his separation.

It is noted that under Title 10, U.S.C., the Military department only offers compensation for a qualifying medical condition under AFM 35-4, only when the medical condition causes career termination; and then only based on the degree of impairment at the time of final military disposition.   The applicant did not a

medical condition that qualified for separation under AFM 35-4. Even if the applicant had a mental disorder diagnosed as compensable under AFM 35-4 at the time of his separation, there is no evidence to show the level of severity would have reached the threshold for a medical retirement.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant's complete evaluation is  at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant believes the AFBCMR Medical Consultant contradicted himself based on the following statement in his evaluation “In view of the respondent’s long record of creditable military service and his present psychiatric disorder, recommend that respondent be discharged from Air Force with an honorable discharge certificate.” He understands he should have been honorably discharged for his long record of creditable military service; however, for his present psychiatric disorder, he should have received a medical retirement. His psychiatrist believes he should have received a medical discharge based on that statement. He believes his application should be granted in the interest of justice.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.
In an additional response, the applicant states he was diagnosed with a personality disorder, paranoid personality in October 1974. He did not receive a diagnosis for PTSD because the Air Force did not know what PTSD was at that time. Although the Medical Consultant spoke of his medical condition, he never stated the Air Force physicians did not know what PTSD was during the period of his treatment. The Air Force now awards medical retirements for his mental disorder. If he had received the proper medical treatment at that time, he would never have had a criminal record or used street drugs to suppress his mental illness. He believes he should be granted medical retirement.

The applicant’s complete response 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.
1.	
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 opinion and recommendation of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. The Board considered the applicant’s assertion that his numerous instances of misconduct and pattern of behavior may have been the result of an undiagnosed PTSD. In our view, while the applicant has decades later been diagnosed with PTSD, given the history of exposure to at least one traumatic event, the evidence provided is insufficient to invalidate the accuracy of assessments by competent medical authorities who more than once assessed the applicant’s pattern of behavior and did not find a medical condition qualifying for processing through the military Disability Evaluation System. Acknowledging that the Department of Veterans Affairs found it reasonable to establish a nexus between the applicant’s experience in Vietnam and a delayed diagnosis of PTSD, we do not consider this proof that PTSD existed at the time of the applicant’s separation nor that it should have been the cause for career termination. 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 the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2008-01653 in Executive Session on 6 Oct 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-01653 was considered:

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Apr 08, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant,
dated 2 Aug 11.
Exhibit D.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Aug 11. Exhibit E.	Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Sep 11.
Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 19 Sep 11, w/atch.