RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03691 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His Separation Program Designator (SPD) of “JGZ” which denotes “Airmen in (basic) (technical) training failed to meet minimum standards for retention during the first 179 days of active duty in the Air Force” be removed and possibly replaced with SPD code “JFO.” 2. His honorable discharge be changed to a medical discharge. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Separation code JGZ does not reflect the true reason for his separation. The actual reason was due to his head being beaten against a wall locker by a drill instructor until he was bloody and unconscious coupled with a physician’s recommendation to separate him. In support of his requests, the applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty and correspondence from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the applicant’s DD Form 214, on 27 Feb 75, he entered the Regular Air Force. According to the applicant’s Narrative Summary, dated 20 Mar 75, on 11 Mar 75, he was admitted to the Wilford Hall Medical Center Psychiatric Department due to a history of frightening nightmares, questionable auditory and visual hallucinations, and agitated behavior. It was noted that the applicant’s physical examination was “Unremarkable with no sign of head trauma.” On 20 Mar 75, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending he be discharge because he was a Marginal Performer in accordance with AFM 39-10, Separation Upon Expiration of Term of Service, for Convenience of Government, Minority, Dependency, and Hardship, Chapter 3, paragraph 3-8L. On the same date, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and elected not to request retention or submit statements in his behalf and waived his right to military counsel. On 21 Mar 75, the Assistant Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support the applicant’s discharge. On 28 Mar 75, the applicant was honorably discharged with a SPD code of “JGZ.” He was credited with 1 month and 2 days of total active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs), which are attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his SPD code. The applicant’s request is untimely. It has been 39 years since the applicant's discharge and there is no reasonable explanation provided regarding the excessive delay in not submitting an application within three years of discharge. Additionally, there is no evidence of an error or injustice in the discharge processing. The discharge to include the narrative reason for separation, SPD code, and character of service was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of discharge authority. The applicant was seen and evaluated by a licensed psychiatrist who made a recommendation to the applicant's commander while he was an apparent psychiatric inpatient. The SPD code of "JGZ" correctly reflects the applicant's reason for separation for the time period that he was discharged. The applicant's record indicates that his apparent mental deficiencies indicated that he would never be a productive member of the Air Force. On 28 Feb 75, the applicant entered training and unsatisfactorily completed two weeks of training. He was deemed to have limited potential and lacked the capability to cope with basic training or become a productive member of the service. On 20 Mar 75, the applicant was diagnosed as having a “301.2 Schizoid personality, manifested by shyness, over sensitivity, seclusiveness, ambivalence of close or competitive relationships with inability to express hostility and ordinary aggressive feelings, reaction to distressing experiences with apparent disorganization.” The report also indicated that the applicant had a past history of psychological evaluation two years prior to entry into the Air Force. Lastly, the applicant was recommended for administrative discharge. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. The AFBCMR Clinical Mental Health Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s request for a medical retirement indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The applicant’s in-service clinical diagnosis of Personality Disorder fell into a category of disorders not considered a disability by either the Military Department or the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). Consequently, his administrative discharge was appropriately based on this diagnosis and the recommendation of a qualified physician. Additionally, he was not eligible for a medical discharge via Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) or Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The applicant has provided no evidence that proves or suggests that the diagnosis issued at the time of his military service was a diagnostic error. 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. The clinical evaluators at the time of the applicant’s service found no evidence of a disqualifying mental health disorder that warranted a MEB and processing via a PEB, as a compensable disability. 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 length of time passed since discharge. This is the reason why an individual can be found fit for release from military service for one reason and yet sometime thereafter receive a compensation rating from the DVA for one or more service-connected, but not militarily 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 (improve or worsen, affecting future employability) over the lifetime of the veteran. From a mental health perspective, the applicant was appropriately diagnosed and dispositioned in accordance with the results competent examination, and regulatory guidance in place at the time. A complete copy of the AFBCMR Clinical Mental Health evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The applicant reiterates that he was separated as a result of a physical injury to his head causing a long life of disabilities that destroyed his dream of making the Air Force a career. In further support of his requests, the applicant provides copies of various excerpts from his medical records. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD: Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. After a careful review of the applicant's contentions, documentation submitted in support of the request, and the available evidence of record, we are not convinced the applicant has provided sufficient evidence for us to conclude that he is the victim of an error or injustice. We also note the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603. While the applicant claims a date of discovery of less than three years prior to receipt of the application, we believe a reasonable date of discovery was more than three years prior to receipt of the application. Therefore, because we do not find it would be in the interest of justice to recommend granting relief, and the applicant has offered no plausible reason for the delay in filing the application, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file the application. Accordingly, we find the application untimely. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness. It is the decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03691 in Executive Session on 11 Feb 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member ? The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03691 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Sep 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 2 Dec 14. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFBCMR Clinical Mental Health Consultant, dated 29 Dec 15. Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Jan 16. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 16 Jan 16, w/atchs.