RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01615 COUNSEL:	NONE
HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His	discharge	be	upgraded	to	honorable	and/or	considered	for possible retirement [presumably medical].

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His infractions do not constitute misconduct but rather a result of a training environment. Also, he was in physical rehabilitation and going to life skills for treatment for an adjustment disorder and alcohol addiction that would later be diagnosed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). His command separated him which he believes to be in error because the base commander ordered he undergo an examination to be fit for worldwide duty. He believes if he had been allowed to fully rehabilitate, he could have been an asset to the air force.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 27 Mar 07, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.
On 3 Jul 08, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending him discharge under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for misconduct--minor disciplinary infractions. The reasons for the action were: the applicant failed to report underage drinking, he was found in possession of alcohol in the dormitory, he failed to report to a mandatory formation, he violated phase restrictions by leaving his military installation while not in the required uniform, and failure to refrain from visiting the dormitory of a permanent party member. For these actions, the applicant received multiple letters of counseling and reprimand, and nonjudicial punishment resulting in reduction in grade and the forfeiture of pay.

On 3 Jul 08, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification. He consulted with counsel and submitted statements to his commander for consideration.

On 10 Jul 08, the discharge action was found legally sufficient.
On 11 Jul 08, the applicant was furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge for misconduct (minor infractions), and was credited with 1 years, 3 months, and 15 days of active service.

On 1 Jun 12, the applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to have his discharge narrative reason, authority of discharge, and his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code changed; however, the AFDRB denied his appeal. The board found “no equitable basis for upgrade of discharge and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.”

In response to a request for post-service information, the applicant provided his FBI criminal record check (no prior arrest data at the FBI) (Exhibit J).

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and G.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
SAF/MRBR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. Evidence has not been supplied to suggest a causal relationship between the applicant’s disciplinary infractions and a mood disorder, such as Adjustment Disorder [whether acute or chronic] or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Consequently, the Medical Consultant opines, even if the applicant was the subject of an approved medical discharge for a compensable mental disorder and his case was processed as a “dual-action” by Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Counsel (SAFPC), more likely than not, the SAFPC would have recommended execution of the approved administrative discharge. Neither acute adjustment disorder nor alcohol dependence was considered compensable under the military Disability Evaluation System (DES). While the DVA granted the applicant a 100% disability rating for PTSD, effective 10 Jul 13, there may have been a nexus with an event during military service. However, no evidence is presented to demonstrate PTSD was clinically present and unfitting at the time of his discharge.

With regards to the applicant’s implicit desire for a medical retirement, the military DES, 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.

To the contrary, the DVA, operating under a different set of law, (Title 38, 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 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 Medical Consultant opines the applicant has not met the burden of proof that warrants the desired change of the record.

A complete copy of the SAF/MRBR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
He contests there is no evidence to suggest he was not suffering from the symptomology of PTSD. The common examples of behavior stoked by service-related PTSD include substance abuse, absence from duty, shirking responsibility and insubordination.  He believes the instances of disciplinary actions constitute these types of behavior. Additionally, he was denied access to medical care and; therefore, unable to produce the AF Form 422 or AF Form 469. He does submit documents where he opted for a medical consultation and was denied. He contends doctors would not see him. He was readmitted to BridgeWay Hospital and met with their psychiatrist, on or about 30 Jun 08, and that was the last time he met with any medical professionals. He believes his command had a thorough understanding and working knowledge of the Air Force Instruction (AFI) in affect during my separation and the reason he outprocessed with the Medical Group 3 times, in a period of approximately less than 180 days, is to avoid or circumvent any potential delay or profile from being established with any medical professionals. In support of this claim, he includes the SF 600, Chronological Record of Medical Care, which states “client is to be placed or profile with no deployments, no PCS (Permanent Change of Station)....” This profile should have been placed on file and was omitted intentionally and not by error.

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
SAF/MRBR Clinical Psychology Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. This Consultant observes some ambivalence in the applicant’s request

given his desire to be considered for a medical retirement while also arguing that with an opportunity to complete rehabilitation he would have been an asset to the Air Force. The applicant has been rated 100% disabled for PTSD stemming from an alleged assault of an unknown nature. This Consultant notes the various mental health symptoms contained in the applicant’s medical record, and opines there is no evidence to suggest the applicant was suffering from a compensable mental disorder that required DES processing. His alcohol use was attributed to boredom on one occasion and to quelling knee pain and its effects on his sleep in another. He was notably angry at his supervisor as his discharge neared, but there is no elaboration on this point. He was counseled or reprimanded for oversleeping (which he attributed to the flu on at least one occasion), not reporting underage drinking, possessing alcohol, and leaving the base multiple times without wearing the proper uniform (e.g., to eat dinner, return a movie, visit an acquaintance). This Consultant opines that none of  these behaviors are unique to a compensable mental disorder  and, instead, are behaviors seen in many instances of administrative separation for minor misconduct.

The Clinical Psychology Consultant is aware of military regulations governing the DES and finds these relevant to the applicant’s current requests. IAW DoDI 1332.38 (in effect at the time of the applicant’s discharge) in order for the applicant to have been entered into the DES for a potential medical separation, he must have met the criteria listed in Enclosure 3 Part 2 of the regulation. The Military Department operates under Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), and must base its actions upon evidence available at the snapshot in time of final military disposition. This Consultant observes that copies of service treatment records supplied by the applicant, as well as available electronic records, do not support the presence of a mental health condition meeting criteria for initiating DES processing as listed in DoDI 1332.38. Placing alcohol dependent Service members on duty limiting profiles is a standard action of the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment Program, in order to permit rehabilitation with as little disruption as possible from deployments or permanent changes of station; however, his diagnoses of alcohol dependence and acute adjustment disorder are not conditions that constitute a physical disability. Even though the applicant was not worldwide qualified during his treatment for alcohol dependence, such a determination does not imply he should have been entered into the DES.

Herein lies an important distinction between Military Department and the DVA. While the Military Department, by law, bases its action on the snapshot of final military disposition, the DVA, operating under a different set of laws (Title 38, U.S.C.) with a different purpose, is authorized to offer service connection and compensation for any medical condition for which it has established a nexus with military service regardless of the narrative reason for separation or the length of time transpired

since discharge. The DVA is even permitted to adjust ratings based on progression of a mental disorder as time transpires. The Military Department is not permitted the same latitude. Therefore, post-service DVA ratings do not equate to a Military Department decision that a mental health condition rendered a Service member unfit for continued military service at the time of discharge.

It is the opinion of Clinical Psychology Consultant that the applicant has not met the burden of proof an error or injustice exists in this case and recommends his request be denied.

Additionally, the applicant’s progress in the brief amount of time he was able to attend treatment for his alcohol addiction was indeed laudable; and, the Clinical Psychology Consultant would like to remind him treatment for alcohol dependence could likely continue through the DVA, if he desired such services.

A complete copy of the SAF/MRBR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit F.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the SAF/MRBR Clinical Psychology Consultant evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 30 Jun 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit H). As of this date, no response has 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 an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, including his rebuttal response, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the BCMR Medical Consultant, and BCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant, and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. In the interest of justice, we also considered upgrading the discharge; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient for us to conclude that the applicant’s post-service activities overcome the misconduct for which he was discharged. 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-2014-01615 in Executive Session on 26 Aug 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 15 Apr 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Memorandum, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Nov 14. Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Nov 14.
Exhibit E.	Letter, Applicant, received 10 Dec 14. Exhibit F.	Memorandum, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 May 15. Exhibit G.	Memorandum, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Jun 15. Exhibit H.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jun 15.
Exhibit I.	Memorandum, SAF/MRBR, sent 28 Apr 14. Exhibit J.	Letter, Applicant, received 16 Jun 14.