RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER:BC-2010-00603 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ____________________________________________________________ _____ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable. 2. He requests a medical retirement for his service- connected post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). ____________________________________________________________ _____ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He believes he should have received a medical retirement based on the 50 percent disability rating he received from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for his service- connected PTSD. In support of his application, applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, AF Form 356, Finding and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board, and a Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Rating Decision. Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ____________________________________________________________ _____ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 29 Jul 98, the applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force. He was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman, having assumed the grade effective and with a date of rank of 8 Sep 07. He served as a security forces journeyman. On 7 Jul 08, his commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for minor disciplinary infractions. The specific reasons for the discharge action were, he received five Letters of Reprimand (LORs), two Letters of Counseling (LOCs), one Article 15, and an entry in his Unfavorable Information File. His commander advised him of his rights in this matter. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and after consulting with legal counsel invoked his rights associated with an administrative discharge board and waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf. The legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support separation and recommended discharge with a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation. The discharge authority directed discharge with a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation. The applicant's medical records reflect that while on active duty he was treated for a variety of medical conditions to include alcohol abuse, insomnia and PTSD and it was recommended he undergo a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). On 16 Oct 08, he underwent an MEB and they recommended a review by the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). On 13 Nov 08, the IPEB found the applicant unfit due to PTSD and recommended placement on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) with a 50 percent disability rating. Due to his pending approved administrative discharge and now a medical separation, the final determination of the reason for discharge and character of service would be determined by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) via a "dual-action" case analysis. On 27 Mar 09, the SAFPC issued its findings and directed that the applicant be discharged by the approved administrative action; thereby terminating the medical separation action. He was discharged on 24 Apr 09 with a general discharge. He was credited with 10 years, 8 months and 26 days of active service. ____________________________________________________________ _____ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends changing the applicant’s narrative reason for separation to PTSD which would change his character of service to honorable. The Medical Consultant states it was established that the applicant indeed suffered from chronic PTSD, Alcohol Abuse, and Insomnia. The Physical Evaluation Board found him unfit due to his PTSD. He was also, the subject of an involuntary discharge due to several minor disciplinary infractions. The SAFPC during the dual action analysis acknowledged the presence of the applicant's PTSD diagnosis, but found no causal or mitigating relationship between his acts of misconduct and his PTSD; and that mitigating factors were insufficient. The Medical Consultant finds no obvious error in the conduct of the applicant's case at any stage in development. Additionally, none of his acts of misconduct are particularly unique to PTSD and are as likely to be committed by individuals with no underlying mental disorder; except for alcohol-abuse. In view of his three deployments, the plausible worsening of his alcohol usage in the collective context of his PTSD, headaches, and resultant insomnia, the Medical Consultant finds consideration for mitigation of some of the applicant's acts of misconduct. However, illegal passing, improper crossing of an active runway, improper change-over procedures can hardly be attributed to PTSD; nor is refusing to supply legal authorities a requested specimen a sign or symptom of PTSD. However, electing to consume alcohol in the first place re- establishes the aforementioned nexus suggested by his psychologist. The Medical Consultant finds the lines very blurred regarding which is the appropriate basis for separation; and while acknowledging his sacrifices in support of the War on Terror should be taken into consideration, thousands of others have been deployed with no alcohol abuse and no misconduct. Finally, he should also be reminded that, unlike the Department of Defense, operating under Title 10, United States Code, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), operating under a different set of laws (Title 38, U.S.C.) offers compensation for any service incurred or aggravated medical condition, without regard to its impact upon a service member's retainability, fitness for duty, or reason for career termination. Thus, the mere fact that the applicant has received a disability rating and compensation by the DVA does not constitute a justification for a like action by the Department of Defense. The Medical Consultant opines if the Board elects to offer the applicant relief, whether as a matter of clemency or based upon the facts of the case, that relief should be the establishment of the applicant on the TDRL with a 50% disability rating due to PTSD effective his date of separation. This should be followed by an immediate psychiatric re-evaluation followed by a determination of his fitness to serve by the Informal Physical Evaluation Board, or subsequent appellate authorities as necessary. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant's complete 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 12 Aug 10 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response. ____________________________________________________________ _____ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely filed. 3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting some relief. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; and acknowledged that a clear relationship could not be established between all of his disciplinary infractions and the diagnosis of PTSD. However, we considered the applicant’s three deployments, the analysis of the military psychologist, who cited the cyclic relationship between the applicant’s recurring alcohol abuse, PTSD, and resultant insomnia, in rendering the benefit of doubt in his favor. We concur with the recommendations by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant that the record should be changed to reflect that the applicant was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List with a 50percent disability rating due to PTSD, under VA rating code 9411, effective April 24, 2009, that he shall undergo an immediate mental health re-evaluation by a psychiatrist or psychologist, and that the information, along with any other available medical evidence, is provided to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board for a determination of the applicant’s fitness to serve and, if found unfit, to assign the proper disability rating and final disposition of his case. This action places the applicant back within the military Disability Evaluation System, under provisions of AFI 36-3212, with the eligibility for further appellate review of any subsequent recommended actions in his case. Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below. ____________________________________________________________ ___ 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 23 April 2009, 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 received basic pay; that the diagnosis in his case was Post Traumatic Stress Disorder VASRD Code 9411, rated at 50 percent; 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 instrumentality of war. b. On 24 April 2009, he was honorably discharged by reason of a physical disability and his name was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List. c. As regards the election of survivor Benefit Plan options, the record will be corrected in accordance with the member’s subsequently expressed preferences and/or as otherwise provided for by law or the Code of Financial Regulations. ____________________________________________________________ _____ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-00603 in Executive Session on 23 Nov 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, 26 Feb 09, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 28 Jul 09. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Jul 09.