RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02437 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ __ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. 2. He be granted a medical retirement with full benefits and services. ________________________________________________________________ __ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His unsatisfactory job performance that led to his discharge was due to his undiagnosed Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). He had no awareness of PTSD and was never afforded a psychological evaluation prior to his discharge. With a proper assessment he would have been diagnosed with PTSD, received the proper treatment and would not have been discharged for unsatisfactory performance. He received a service connected disability rating from the Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) for PTSD. Therefore, he should have been given a medical retirement for PTSD. In support of his request the applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty; discharge documents, Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Review Officer Decision, performance reports and various other documents associated with his request. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ __ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 5 May 1970, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 15 Feb 1984, his commander notified him she was recommending he be discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for unsatisfactory performance. On 27 Mar 1984, the applicant requested a hearing before an administrative discharge board. On 11 Apr 1984, his commander notified him that an administrative discharge board would be convened to determine whether he would be discharged. On 19 Apr 1984, the Administrative Discharge Board recommended that he be discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 13 Jul 1984, the Deputy Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge action legally sufficient. On 19 Jul 1984, the discharge authority approved the separation and directed a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 24 Jul 1984, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He was credited with 14 years, 2 months and 19 days of total active service. ________________________________________________________________ __ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge or that he be granted a medical retirement. DPSOR states that documentation on file in the master personnel records support the basis for discharge. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The BCMR Medical Consultant states that the applicant appears to have been diagnosed with PTSD sometime prior to 23 Dec 2009 and awarded disability compensation at 10 percent. Based on DVA records it appears the applicant’s condition worsened and his compensation rating was increased to 30 percent as of 23 Dec 2009 [25 years after discharge]. Addressing the applicant’s implicit desire for a medical retirement, the military Disability Evaluation System (DES), established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law, under Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), 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 time of separation and not based on future occurrences. On the other hand, operating under a different set of laws (Title 38, U.S.C.), with a different purpose, the DVA is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition determined service incurred, 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 or transpired period since the date of separation. With this in mind, Title 38, U.S.C. was written to allow awarding compensation ratings for conditions that were not unfitting for military service or at the time of separation. This is the reason why an individual can be found fit for release from military service and yet sometime thereafter receive a compensation rating from the DVA for service-connected, but militarily non-unfitting conditions. The DVA is also empowered to conduct periodic re-evaluations for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating awards (increase or decrease) as the level of impairment from a given service connected medical condition may vary, affecting future employability over the lifetime of the veteran. This is why the applicant’s awarded 10 percent (was increased to 30 percent as of 23 Dec 2009) for PTSD with depression not otherwise specified. The Medical Consultant could not find supporting evidence to establish that the applicant was unable to reasonably perform his military duties due to one or more medical conditions during his military service. Had the applicant been evaluated under the military DES system, he would have been found fit for duty, and if found unfit his disability of 10 percent would have been below the threshold for a medical retirement in 1984. The applicant has not met the burden of proof of error or injustice that warrants the desired change to his record. The complete Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ __ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical advisory opinion is not based on fact. The records clearly show that he enlisted in the Air Force on 5 May 1970 and was separated on 24 Jul 1984, which computes to 14 years, 2 months and 19 days - not 12 years, 4 months and 27 days. He reasserts his request that his discharge be upgraded to honorable. The evidence shows that after 14 years of honorable service, his PTSD and the pain from the injuries he suffered during his military service manifested into unsatisfactory performance. He has three periods of honorable service and was allowed to reenlist in 1974, 1978 and 1982 because of his outstanding record. Since his discharge he has received treatment for his PTSD and has been a model citizen. He is a respected local, state and national leader and a patriot. He did not fail the Air Force, the Air Force failed him. The DVA rated him 100 percent disabled and he has no doubt that had a complete physical and psychological examination been completed he would have been given a medical discharge. In further support of his request, the applicant provides numerous photos, copies of letters of appreciation, DVA correspondence, PTSD Fact sheet and various other documents related to his appeal. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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. 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 opinions and recommendations of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. While the applicant’s response to the evaluations is noted, other than his uncorroborated assertions, he has not provided any evidence which in our opinion, successfully refutes the assessments of his case by the aforementioned evaluations. 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 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 5 Mar 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC- 2013-02437: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 May 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 10 Jul 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, BCMR Medical Advisory, dated 25 Jul 2013. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 31 Jul 2013. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 28 Aug 2013, w/atchs. Panel Chair