RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-05237 COUNSEL: NONE AKA HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions discharge be changed to a medical discharge, with a 50 percent rating and the associated back pay. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was discharged for the good of the service. However, he suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) due to a physical assault, which resulted in an attempted suicide. He was beaten; however, no one was prosecuted and he was told that if he kept talking about the assault, he would be sent to a military jail. The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) determined he had a long term illness resulting from the assault and granted him a 50 percent disability rating. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 26 July 1968, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 25 October 1968, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation and was diagnosed with personality disorder. In a letter dated 28 January 1969, the applicant requested that he be discharged under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Unfitness, Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program, paragraph 2-78, for the good of the service. In a letter dated 11 February 1969, the applicant’s request for discharge was approved, and indicated he would be furnished a DD Form 257AF, General Discharge Certificate. On 13 February 1969, the applicant received an under honorable conditions discharge, and was credited with 4 months and 20 days of active service. He had 58 days lost time due to being absent without leave (AWOL) during the period 11 November 1968 to 8 January 1969. His Separation Designation Number is 246, which denotes “Request for discharge for the good of the service.” According to the applicant’s DD Form 214, on 23 June 1972, he enlisted in the United States Army under a different first name. He received an under other than honorable conditions discharge on 12 June 1974. He had 333 days of lost time and was credited with 1 year and 22 days of active service. On 28 January 2016, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C), as of this date, no response has been received by this office. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the BCMR Psychiatric Consultant, which is attached at Exhibit D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Psychiatric Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. In the applicant’s petition before the Board, he only discussed his Air Force service. Additionally, his DVA Compensation and Pension (C&P) evaluation listed the Air Force as his only prior service. However, after his discharge from the Air Force, the applicant served in the Army, under a different name. On his Army enlistment forms the applicant denied any prior military service or any psychiatric/personality conditions. Unfortunately, his second attempt at a military career was also unsuccessful, as he exhibited similar behaviors and was ultimately discharged with an under other than honorable conditions character of service. According to DVA records, the applicant’s post-military life was difficult. He suffered from alcoholism and could not maintain stable relationships or employment due to his interpersonal conflicts with people. After a life of substance abuse, crime and failed relationships, the applicant now claims that the Air Force should take full responsibility for all his failures. He asserts that he was physically assaulted during his training period and suffered from PTSD since the incident. The applicant believes that his recent diagnosis of PTSD by the DVA can serve as proof of his illness during his enlistment and can fully explain his misconduct. The applicant has never reported this assault, and according to the C&P examiner, the applicant attempted to discuss the assault with his drill sergeant, but was allegedly threatened with incarceration. The BCMR Psychiatric Consultant disagrees with the C&P examiner’s assessment that the applicant’s consistency in reporting the assault to different providers can serve as evidence of its validity. However, the repetition of a report does not make it a factual. The Board is not an investigative body and given the age of this claim, it would be impossible to prove or disprove the applicant’s allegation. The role of this Board is to determine if the Air Force subjected the applicant to an error or injustice. The applicant’s discharge was due to misconduct for multiple AWOLs with 63 [sic] lost days and for personality disorder diagnosed by a mental health specialist. The applicant denied any prior problems on his enlistment application and under assumption of fitness, he was healthy when he enlisted. However, the reliability of his report is questionable, since there is evidence of fictitious information during the applicant’s fraudulent Army enlistment. Notwithstanding the applicant’s AWOLs and alleged suicide attempt, there is no evidence that he has suffered from PTSD at the time of his discharge from the military. In fact, the only diagnosis that has been given to him was a personality disorder, which is a disqualifying condition, but not eligible for a medical retirement. The fact that the DVA granted the applicant a disability rating for PTSD, suggests, while there may have been a nexus with an event during military service, no evidence is presented to demonstrate that PTSD was clinically present and unfitting at the time of the applicant’s discharge. Addressing the applicant’s implicit desire for a medical retirement, the military Disability Evaluation System, 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 “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 laws (Title 38, U.S.C.), is empowered to offer compensation for any medical condition with an established nexus to military service, without regard to its impact upon a member’s fitness to serve, the narrative reason for separation, or the length of 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 applicant claims his PTSD is the reason for his poor conduct during his military service. Even if the applicant had suffered from PTSD or some other disabling mental health illness at the time of his discharge and it was unfitting, by current regulations, he would still be confronted with a “dual-action” review by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council, which would render him vulnerable for execution of the administrative discharge in lieu of a medical separation or retirement action he desires. Therefore, even though the DVA has granted compensation for the applicant’s medical condition, this evidence does not invalidate the appropriateness of the military discharge disposition. Unless additional clinical information from 1969 is presented for the review, the BCMR Psychiatric Consultant cannot prove that an error or injustice took place in the decision rendered. A complete copy of the BCMR Psychiatric evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 28 March 2016, a copy of the BCMR Psychiatric Consultant’s evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 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 Correction of military records: claims incident thereto, and AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records. 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-2014-05237 in Executive Session on 12 May 2016, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member Due to the unavailability of -------, ------- will sign as Acting Panel Chair. The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-05237 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 December 2014. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 January 2016, w/atch. Exhibit D. Memorandum, BCMR Psychiatric Consultant, dated 22 March 2016. Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 March 2016.