RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 				DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00531

  XXXXXXXXXX					COUNSEL:  NONE

							HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received two Article 15’s without first being offered a letter of reprimand.  His disciplinary problems were associated with his unresolved “psych” issues.  He currently has a 70 percent service connected disability rating.  An honorable discharge will help him better adjust to civilian life.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 16 February 1982, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.

According to USAFE Form 314, Certificate of Psychiatric Evaluation, dated 6 August 1982, the applicant’s diagnosis of “Reactive depression by history,” was resolved.  The narrative further indicated that the applicant was not experiencing a psychiatric condition that would preclude him from carrying a weapon or from performing other Security Police duties.

According to AF Form 2737, Medial Evaluation – Potential Substance Abuse, dated 2 September 1982, the treating physician recommended “mandatory entry” into the alcohol rehabilitation program.

On 25 October 1982, the applicant received an Article 15 for unlawfully grabbing and ripping an individual’s jacket.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-2 with a date of rank of 27 October 1982.

On 27 October 1982, the applicant received an Article 15 for being drunk and disorderly and for damaging a door.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-1 with a date of rank of 5 November 1982.

In a letter dated 2 November 1982, the applicant’s section commander requested a Mental Health Evaluation indicating the applicant was involved in an alcohol related incident, was currently in the alcohol program and had been temporarily decertified from the Personnel Reliability Program.

In a letter dated 3 November 1982, the Chief, Mental Health Services advised the applicant’s section commander that the applicant had no psychiatric conditions that would preclude him from returning to full Security Police duties.  He further stated that the applicant’s future in the Air Force was dependent on his duty performance and conduct.  Should the applicant fail to maintain satisfactory standards, he should be considered for separation from the service in accordance with the appropriate non-medical directive.

According to AF Form 2737 dated 2 August 1983, the Drug and Alcohol Abuse Control Noncommissioned Officer stated that the applicant was referred to her office following a fight.  It was her opinion that the applicant frequently abused alcohol and should he be entered into the inpatient Alcohol Rehabilitation Center [applicant previously completed outpatient care in May 1983].

On 27 September 1983, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, and was credited with 1 year, 7 months, and 12 days of active service.  His narrative reason for separation is “Misconduct.”

On 19 March 2015, 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 the application is untimely as it has been more than 30 years since he was discharged from the Air Force and his Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) disability evaluation occurred in the 1990’s.  There is no valid reason why the applicant did not submit a petition within three years of discharge or discovery.  Nevertheless, in the interest of justice the BCMR Psychiatric Consultant has carefully reviewed all the available medical documentation and military records and indicates there is no evidence of an error or injustice.  It appears that the applicant had two disciplinary actions in 1982, and both incidents were due to violent behaviors, most likely in the context of the alcohol intoxication.  His records further indicate that these were not the only two episodes of unlawful underage drinking.  In July 1982, preceding his misconduct, his behavioral health notes reflect the applicant had issues with alcohol abuse and a substance abuse evaluation was recommended.  In 1983, following “successful” completion of the substance abuse program, he was involved in another alcohol related incident.  The record gives an impression that the applicant’s two administrative actions, do not adequately reflect the extent of his alcohol abuse and misconduct, which ultimately resulted in his discharge.  The applicant was evaluated in the Mental Health Clinic in July 1982 for possible depressive symptoms due to stressors at home; however, these stressors appeared to have resolved by August 1982.  In fact, the examiner specifically documented “He is not suffering from any psychiatric condition which would warrant separation from the service by reason of medical disability under the provision of AFM 35-4,” forerunner of today’s AFI 36-3212, Physical Examination for Retention, Retirement and Separation.  In November 1982, the applicant was again evaluated by the Chief of the Behavioral Health Services who opined that the applicant was healthy and recommended administrative separation if he failed to respond to the corrective actions by the command.  The applicant’s substance abuse evaluation in August 1983 failed to identify any issues with depression, but clearly documented the applicant’s poor insight into his alcohol abuse.  Despite the fact that the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) granted the applicant disability rating for depression, there is no evidence the depression was clinically present and unfitting at the time of the applicant’s discharge.  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 “snap-shot” 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 with 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.

A complete copy of the BCMR Psychiatric Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the BCMR Psychiatric Consultant’s evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 19 May 2016, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  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-2015-00531 in Executive Session on 12 July 2016, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00531 was considered:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 February 2015, w/atch.
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 March 2015, w/atch.
Exhibit D.  Memorandum, BCMR Psychiatric Consultant, dated 
  26 April 2016.
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 May 2016.