RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00050 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) character of service be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He has been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a result of being a witness, while on duty, of the second worst airshow accident in aviation history. This 28 August 1988 incident caused an emotional downward spiral, which was at the root of his misconduct during the last 11 months he was on active duty in the Air Force. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to documents extracted from his military personnel record, the applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who entered active duty on 15 March 1983. He served as an Air Traffic Control Operator and Security Specialist and was progressively promoted to the grade of Sergeant (Sgt), E-4. On 11 May 1989, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending him for discharge for Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline under the provisions of Air Force Regulation 39-10, Discharge-Expiration of Enlistment or Required Service and General Provisions, paragraph 5-47b. The specific reason for the discharge recommendation was that: On or about 2 March 1989, he received an Article 15 for assaulting his girlfriend by striking her with his fist and by pushing her down. This resulted in a suspended reduction to the grade of Airman First Class and forfeiture of $216.00. On or about 12 April 1989, he received notification of vacation of suspended Nonjudicial Punishment for the 2 March 1989, Article 15 for assault and resisting apprehension. This resulted in his reduction in grade to Airman First Class. On or about 20 April 1989, he received another Article 15 for an assault that took place on 22 March 1989. This resulted in his reduction to the grade of Airman. On 16 May 1989, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and was advised of his right to present his case to an administrative discharge board subject to his availability, be represented by military counsel and submit statements in his own behalf for consideration by the administrative discharge board and the separation authority. He opted to consult counsel as well as present his case to an administrative discharge board; however, he declined to submit a statement in his own behalf. The administrative discharge board convened on 1 June 1989. After hearing testimonies and reviewing the evidence and circumstances, they found the applicant did commit the alleged offenses and recommended he be separated with a general discharge and not be offered probation and rehabilitation with a conditional suspension of the discharge. Subsequent to the file being found legally sufficient, the discharge authority approved the separation and directed the applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. The applicant was released from active duty on 10 July 1989 and was credited with 6 years, 3 months, and 26 days of active duty service. On 28 April 2014, the applicant was given an opportunity to submit comments regarding his post service activities (Exhibit C). To date, a response has not been received by this office. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends consideration for granting relief based upon clemency. The Medical Consultant states that it should first be stated that the applicant’s submission has not been timely filed. However, in the interest of justice this review has been undertaken. Although not specifically requested on his application, in order to justify a medical separation at this late date, there must be evidence that the applicant experienced a disqualifying and compensable medical condition that interfered with his ability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, and rating. A review of the record indicates that, despite the applicant’s interpersonal relationship problems, he was able to function effectively in his position as an Air Traffic Controller. With respect to his off-duty behavior, the information disclosed by the applicant and his alleged victim appeared to be unrelated to a compensable mental disorder in the opinion of the military psychiatrist. The record indicates that after the breakup of the relationship, the applicant’s outlook was positive and he indicated a strong desire to continue to serve. Thus, there were no clinical or duty performance grounds upon which to conduct a Medical Evaluation Board and to medically discharge or retire the applicant who was found to be otherwise worldwide qualified from a mental health perspective. Acknowledging the letter from the applicant’s clinical social, the Medical Consultant finds it virtually impossible to now characterize his 1988-1989, episodes of misconduct, which consisted principally of biting, shoving, and/or yelling at his girlfriend, being directly caused by his exposure to the 1988 Flugtag air disaster. The Medical Consultant finds this particularly relevant in the context of a lack of an enduring decline in his observed functioning in other spheres of his life; but particularly his ongoing on-duty performance in the very occupation during which his traumatic exposure occurred. The applicant is advised that, 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 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 as likely in this case, the intervening period since the date of separation. With this in mind, Title 38, U.S.C., which governs the DVA compensation system, was written to allow awarding compensation ratings for conditions with a nexus with military service, but that were not proven individually unfitting at the time of military service or at the time of separation. 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 improve or worsen over the lifetime of the veteran. However, given the applicant's otherwise outstanding duty performance and the length of time since discharge, the Board may consider granting the applicant an upgrade of discharge based at least in part upon clemency. The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant, on 5 December 2014, for review and comment (Exhibit E). To date, a response has not been received by this office. 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, based on the available evidence of record; it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority. 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. We noted the BCMR Medical Consultant’s recommendation and, in the interest of justice, considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency and the applicant's overall post-service activities and accomplishments; however, the evidence submitted was not sufficient to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis. Therefore, we find no basis upon which to recommend relief. 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 6 January 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00050 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Jan 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records Exhibit C. Clemency Bulletin, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Apr 2014. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR Med Consultant, dated 1 Dec 2014. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Dec 2014.