RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01362 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be changed to a medical discharge. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She had medical conditions that prohibited her from thinking rationally. Her symptoms began during the Gulf War immediately after receiving the anthrax shot. She was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), chronic headaches, Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS), insomnia, depression, and severe auto immune disorder. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, on 12 Mar 97, she entered the Regular Air Force. On 24 Jun 99, the applicant’s commander notified her that he was recommending her discharge from the Air Force for Misconduct - Pattern of Misconduct. The specific reasons for the action were that: a. On 21 Aug 97, she received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failing to make a mandatory formation. b. On 8 Jan 99, she received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for intentionally misrepresenting her involvement in a major incident that occurred off-base. c. On 24 Mar 99, she received Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP) for unlawfully striking someone in the face with her hands. d. On 7 Apr 99, she received a Record of Individual Counseling (RIC) for being away from her appointed place of duty for too long. e. On 6 May 99, she received a LOR for dereliction of duty by failing to return to work after dropping off a friend at the hospital. f. On 24 May 99, she received NJP for failing to go to her appointed place of duty at the prescribed time between on or about 9 Apr 99 to on or about 22 Apr 99. On 24 Jun 99, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action, and on 25 Jun 99, she waived her right to a board hearing and to consult with legal counsel and submitted a statement in her own behalf. On 30 Jul 99, the case was reviewed and determined to be legally sufficient. On 13 Aug 99, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged with an UOTHC discharge. On 18 Aug 99, the applicant received an UOTHC discharge and was credited with 2 years, 5 months, and 7 days of total active service. On 28 Jun 13, SAF/MRBC notified the applicant that her application was administratively closed as a result of her expressing the necessity for more time to gather more evidence in support of her case (Exhibit G). On 5 Feb 14, the applicant requested that her case be reopened. In support of her contentions that her medical conditions contributed to her misconduct, the applicant provides excerpts from her medical records that she believes describes her medical conditions after receiving the anthrax shot which was the cause of all of her issues that resulted in her discharge (Exhibit J). AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating the burden of proof has not been met to warrant granting the applicant’s request to replace her administrative discharge with a medical separation. Based on the evidence provided, there is no medical condition found that established a definitive cause and effect relationship between the applicant’s duty performance and a medical ailment; nor one which justifies an alternative medical basis for release from military service. In order to procedurally make the change from a UOTHC discharge to a medical retirement, there must be evidence of a disqualifying and compensable [In Line of Duty] medical condition that, at the time of the applicant’s service, concurrently interfered with her ability to perform military duties and rendered her non-worldwide qualified; which then resulted in a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB), followed by a review and an unfit finding by a Physical Evaluation Board. While the applicant proposes establishment of a causal and mitigating relationship between her Anthrax vaccination and her acts of misconduct, the Medical Consultant does not find such a definitive relationship; notwithstanding the fact that the Department of Veterans Affairs may establish a presumptive nexus of certain conditions with military service by virtue of an individual’s Gulf War experiences. The nature of the applicant’s misconduct is not unique to or diagnostic of any particular compensable mental, neurological, or physiologic disorder; and the type of misconduct committed by her may also occur among the medically unimpaired population. There is no evidence that the applicant had a diagnosable compensable medical condition during her military service that also demonstrated, by virtue of its severity, evidence that warranted processing through the military Disability Evaluation System. Operating under a different set of laws, Title 38, U.S.C., the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition which it finds service- connected, without regard to [and independent of] its demonstrated or proven impact upon a service member’s retainability, fitness to serve, narrative reason for separation, or the intervening period since the date of separation. The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant 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 24 May 13 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice to warrant a change to the applicant’s discharge characterization. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include her characterization of service was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.48.1 states that discharges arising from a pattern of misconduct should be characterized as UOTHC. However, under paragraph 5.48, if the circumstances are such that a UOTHC discharge is not warranted, a general discharge is appropriate. A UOTHC should only be given when a pattern or behavior or one or more acts or omissions from the member constitutes a significant departure from the conduct expected of airmen (such as the use of force or violence to produce serious bodily injury or death, abuse of a special position of trust, disregard by a superior of customary superior- subordinate relationships, or acts or omissions that endanger national security or the safety of personnel). Since the applicant’s conduct was of such a serious nature, a UOTHC was approved. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 21 Jun 13 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 28 Jun 13, the applicant’s case was administratively closed after she expressed a necessity for more time to gather more evidence in her case. The applicant subsequently provided copies medical documentation that she believes supports her contention that her medical issues were the cause of her misconduct. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant provides a supplemental advisory and recommends denial of the applicant’s request to supplement her UOTHC discharge with a medical discharge. The Medical Consultant cannot make a definitive causal or mitigating relationship between the applicant’s disciplinary infractions and the effects of the Anthrax vaccination. However, it is conceivable that the applicant’s contention of sleep problems may have contributed to the offenses that resulted in her 24 May 99 NJP action. Nevertheless, the other offenses in which she was recommended for discharge cannot be attributed to a specific medical disorder. While striking another female in the face suggests some problem with anger management or impulse control, it also does not excuse the behavior; particularly in the absence of a psychotic disorder or other potentially mitigating impairment. In any case, there is no evidence presented to suggest a disqualifying physical or mental impairment existed that warranted a MEB. The Medical Consultant notes that the previous administrative closure of the applicant’s case now has her on the border of the 15-year time restriction to apply to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB). Therefore, the Board may consider the applicant’s petition through the lens of the AFDRB by considering whether the applicant would have received a UOTHC discharge had she not received the 24 May 99 NJP action; which appears, at least in part, mitigated by sleep impairment. If so, the Board may find it appropriate to upgrade the applicant’s discharge characterization to general (under honorable conditions), which may result in her receiving access to needed services by the DVA. The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant supplemental evaluation is at Exhibit H. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant provides six pages of excerpts from her medical records and a copy of her VA Form 21-4138, Statement in Support of Claim, in support of her contentions that her medical conditions contributed to her being administratively discharged (Exhibit J). 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice to warrant a medical discharge. 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 AFPC/DPSOR and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. We note the AFBCMR Medical Consultant states the applicant’s 24 May 99 NJP action appears to be in part mitigated by sleep impairment and suggests upgrading her discharge to honorable. However, the applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the characterization of the service was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, in the absence of any evidence related to the applicant’s post-service activities, there is no way for us to determine if the applicant’s accomplishments since leaving the service warrant such an action. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought. 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-2013-01362 in Executive Session on 13 May 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Mar 13, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 22 May 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 24 May 13. Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 5 Jun 13. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jun 13. Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 28 Jun 13. Exhibit H. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 7 Nov 14. Exhibit I. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Jan 15. Exhibit J. Medical Excerpts provided by the Applicant.