ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00505 COUNSEL:	NONE
HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His separation code and narrative reason for separation be changed to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

RESUME OF CASE:
On 29 November 2011, the Board considered and partially granted a similar request. For an accounting of the facts surrounding his previous request and the rationale of the Board’s earlier decision, see the Record of Proceeding, with attachment at Exhibit G.

By DD Form 149, Application for Correction of Military Record, dated 19 August 2015, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration and provided a three-page personal statement, wherein he describes the details of his traumatic experiences during his deployment to Iraq.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit H.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Psychiatric Advisor recommends denial indicating the applicant’s narrative separation for separation should remain Secretarial Authority.

There are several issues to consider. First, the applicant admitted to his providers at the Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) that he had a pre-existing condition of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). He also reported that he was treated over an extended period of time for it prior to entering the military. DoDI 6130.3, prescribes medical standards for appointment, enlistment, or induction in the military services. These standards, if not met, are grounds for rejection for military service, unless: 1) the applicant has not required an Individualized Educational Program (IEP) after the age of 14; 2) no history of comorbid mental disorders; 3) the member has never taken more than a single daily dosage of medication or been

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

prescribed  medication  for  this  condition  for  more  than
24 cumulative months after the age of 14; 4) has been able to maintain a 2.0 grade point average without accommodations after the age of 14 and with no medication; 5) documentation from the prescribing provider to say that continued medication is not required for acceptable occupational or work performance. Had this been known prior to the applicant’s discharge, the aforementioned evidence and disclosures might have led to him receiving a discharge due to Fraudulent Enlistment.

The second issue to consider is the diagnosis of PTSD. The DVA has established a nexus between the applicant’s military service and his PTSD diagnosis. Nevertheless, by the applicant’s own report of the events in Iraq in 2000, he did not witness the bombs falling on the tents and only heard about people being killed. The applicant reports that the convoy went the wrong way, but they were able to rejoin the other part of the convoy without any untoward experiences. That is not to say that he was not frightened by all of the possibilities of what could have happened. It does appear, by the applicant’s report that returning from Iraq and finding his girlfriend/fiancé seriously injured from a motor vehicle accident and overwhelming bills was the trauma that upset him the most.

The Psychiatric Advisor believes that the collective onslaught of events; fiancé’s injuries, the bills, her pregnancy and finding out that the child was not his, and with the relationship ending in divorce was most shocking [sic]. There is a clear indication by the number of infractions throughout the applicant’s career that he was experiencing some level of duress throughout his time in the military. In October 2003, he was evaluated and diagnosed with having a severe Axis I Adjustment Disorder. The Adjustment Disorder was severe enough to warrant a recommendation for discharge. At the time of the applicant’s discharge, the diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder was errantly processed as a Personality Disorder with the outcome of an administrative discharge. Under the authority of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation Of Airmen in effect at the time of the applicant’s service, when it has been determined that an Acute Adjustment Disorder is [so] severe as to significantly interfere with an individual’s ability to perform military service, the member is vulnerable for an involuntary discharge. In accordance with DoD policy, in effect at the time of the applicant’s service, an Adjustment Disorder was considered unsuitable for military service and not eligible for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) processing as a compensable disorder.

With regard to the applicant’s PTSD disability rating by the DVA. The DVA operating under, Title 38, United States Code (USC), is empowered to offer compensation for any medical condition with an established nexus with military service, without regard to its impact upon a member’s fitness to serve, the narrative reason for release from service, or the length of time transpired since the date of discharge. The DVA may also conduct periodic reevaluations for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating awards as the

level of impairment from a given medical condition may vary [improve or worsen] over the lifetime of the veteran. The military Disability Evaluation System (DES), was established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law, under Title 10, USC, only offer compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries which specifically rendered a member unfit for continued active service and were the cause for career termination; and then only for the degree of impairment present at the “snapshot” time of separation and not based on post-service progression of disease or injury. This means that one condition can be diagnosed at the time of service and another can present later. It is worth noting that when the applicant was initially seen in 2010, by doctors at the DVA he was not given a diagnosis of PTSD.

Even though, after several decades, the DVA has granted service connection for the applicant’s psychiatric condition, PTSD, this evidence does not invalidate the appropriateness of the military discharge disposition, which was based upon the information present at the time of the applicant’s release from military service. At the time of discharge the applicant had a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with depression and anxiety which was an administrative discharge and not compensable.

A complete copy of the BCMR Psychiatric Advisor evaluation is at Exhibit J.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 13 Dec 16, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit K). As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
After again reviewing this application and the evidence provided in support of his appeal we remain unpersuaded the evidence presented demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

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-2011-00505 in Executive Session on 25 Jan 17, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit G.	Record of Proceedings, dated 6 Dec 11,
w/atch.
Exhibit H.	DD Form 149, dated 19 Aug 15, w/atch. Exhibit I.	Pertinent Excerpts from Personnel Records. Exhibit J.	Memorandum, BCMR Psychiatric Advisor, dated
14 Nov 16.
Exhibit K.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Dec 16.
Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.