RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02751

   						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS:

1.  His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to General (Under Honorable Conditions). 

2.  The narrative reason for discharge on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed from “Misconduct” to “Medical Reasons.”

APPLICANT CONTENDS:

He suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), exacerbated by Military Sexual Trauma (MST) experienced while on active duty.  His medical conditions were directly linked to his subsequent substance abuse, which resulted in his UOTHC.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 27 Sep 89.

On 23 Oct 98, the applicant’s commander notified him he was recommending him for discharge from the Air Force for misconduct (drug abuse) with an UOTHC characterization of service.  The reasons for taking this action were:

a.  On or about 16 May 98, after being involved in an automobile accident that caused damage to another vehicle, he drove away from the scene of the accident without stopping, then failed to report his accident to the police.  A British Magistrate’s Court convicted him of failing to report the accident and failing to stop after the accident. For his criminal misconduct, the court fined him for the court costs. 

b.  On or about 11 Sep 98, the applicant drove a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, with a blood alcohol content at 0.148 percent.  A Magistrate’s Court, convicted him of drunk driving, fining him for court costs, and suspending his driving privileges for 18 months.  For this, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 25 Sep 98, and an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) was established. 

c.  On 6 Oct 98, British customs officials discovered marijuana and psilocybin (Magic Mushrooms) in the applicant’s possession.  A Magistrate’s Court found him guilty of importing 2.55 grams of Magic Mushrooms and 2.9 grams of Herbal Cannabis (marijuana) into England.  For this, the Court fined him for court costs.  For his civilian conviction for the illegal importation of drugs and for failing to notify the military of his arrest and subsequent court conviction, he was given an LOR, dated 16 Oct 98, which was placed in his existing UIF. 

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification, his right to legal counsel, and his right to submit statements on his own behalf.  The case was reviewed and determined to be legally sufficient.  The applicant waived his right to a hearing before an Administrative Discharge Board.  

On 17 Nov 98, the discharge authority directed the applicant be separated with a UOTHC discharge, without probation or rehabilitation.      

On 25 Nov 98, the applicant was furnished an UOTHC discharge, with a narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct,” and was credited with 9 years, 1 month, and 29 days of active service.   

On 1 Feb 13, the Discharge Review Board (DRB) denied his appeal to upgrade his discharge.  

On 9 Jul 15, the AFBCMR forwarded a request for post-service information to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.  (Exhibit C)

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and the AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor, which are attached at Exhibits D and E.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPSOR-SEP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice concerning his discharge.  In accordance with AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.54, “drug abuse is incompatible with military service and airmen who abuse drugs one or more times are subject to discharge for misconduct.”  Although drug abuse was determined by the discharge authority as the primary basis for discharge, the applicant was also cited for a pattern of misconduct based on discreditable involvement with military or civilian authorities.  The applicant’s three civilian convictions demonstrated such a pattern as the additional basis for discharge.  The applicant’s misconduct disrupted good order, discipline, and morale within the military community; hence, discharge was appropriate.  The discharge, to include the Separation Program Designation (SPD) code, narrative reason for separation, and character of service was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR-SEP evaluation is at Exhibit D.

The AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor recommends granting the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge to General, indicating there is evidence of an error or an injustice, but recommends denying his request to change his reason for separation.  The applicant argues that at the time of his military service he was suffering from undiagnosed and untreated PTSD, which he self-medicated with drugs and alcohol.  In 2013, when the applicant appealed to the DRB for the discharge upgrade, he claimed severe childhood abuse as the basis for his PTSD.  During this appeal, the applicant adds another level to his trauma and claims physical and emotional abuse by his Officer in Charge (OIC).  The applicant has had multiple diagnoses documented by the Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) providers and include: Polysubstance dependence (heroin, benzodiazepines, alcohol and other substances), PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), Antisocial Personality Disorder, and Borderline Personality Disorder.  

The applicant had mental health issues prior to joining the military.  It appears it was not disclosed by the applicant on the Medical History Report during the enlistment.  A letter from the applicant’s psychologist indicates the applicant became involved in a relationship with “his OIC” female officer and “initially he had felt flattered by her attentions, but as a relationship developed and became sexual in nature, this officer began to be both verbally and physically abusive towards him.”  The applicant asserts the OIC threatening to report their relationship as a way to control him, however, this does not meet the logic test, since the repercussions would be significantly more detrimental for the officer involved.  This consultant by no means discounts the applicant’s claims of the abuse, but unfortunately, the applicant’s allegations are unsubstantiated by any evidence.  

The applicant’s duty performance continued to be outstanding through all nine years of his military career with no documented deterioration of function following the 1994 abuse allegations.  In fact, per Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) IV/V, one of the diagnostic requirements for PTSD diagnosis, it has to cause “clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning”.  On review of the available records, this consultant has failed to find any evidence of the impairment, and even though, PTSD has a high comorbidity with substance abuse, substance abuse alone cannot be used as a diagnostic evidence of comorbid PTSD.  The psychiatric consultant does not dispute the applicant’s current mental health diagnoses, but merely states, the applicant had not been able to demonstrate he had suffered from PTSD in the 1990s. Furthermore, based on his presentation at that time his PTSD would not be unfitting for the purpose of medical discharge or retirement.  Even though the DVA diagnosed the applicant with PTSD and MDD, this evidence does not invalidate the appropriateness of the military discharge disposition, which was based upon the information present at the “snap shot” time of the applicant’s release from military service.  Therefore, the reason for discharge listed on DD Form 214 is accurate.  The applicant’s uses the Memorandum from the Secretary of the Defense from 3 Sep 14 as the supporting directive to give him “liberal consideration” for PTSD.  However, this directive only applies to Vietnam-era Veterans.

However, concerning his type of discharge, there is certainly evidence of an injustice.  The application includes a letter from his former supervisor, a retired master sergeant (MSgt), in which she acknowledges the applicant was known to drink excessively, nevertheless, because “it did not seem to carry over into the workplace” it was never addressed by the applicant’s leadership. The supervisor concludes “it is my opinion (the applicant) was failed by the military.”  This psychiatric advisor is not familiar with the regulations in 1998, but in the interest of justice, the Board might consider applying the contemporary guidelines.  The applicant’s command did not follow the policy in AFI 44-121, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment (Adapt) Program, paragraph 3.7.2.4, which states “In incidents of DUI/DWI, the commander will refer the individual to the ADAPT Program within 24 hours whenever possible, but no later than (NLT) the next duty day.”  After the applicant’s DUI he was not referred for evaluation to alcohol and drug abuse prevention and treatment (ADAPT) program at all (at least the record is silent of such referral).  Unfortunately, less than a month later the applicant received another drug related charge that resulted in termination of his career.  This consultant has certainly seen the evidence of lack of concern on the part of the applicant’s leadership regarding his alcoholism, and finds the decisions of the Military Department did not represent an error, but does represent some degree of injustice, and recommends upgrade of discharge to General character of service.

A complete copy of the AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor evaluation is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

In further support of his request, the applicant submitted a rebuttal response to the Air Force evaluation, taking exception to both.  First, he question why DPSOR makes no mention of the evidence he submitted.  Second, he rebuts several points raised in the Mental Health Advisor’s evaluation.  Where she states the Board will never know if an ADAPT referral would have made a difference in the applicant’s escalation of substance abuse, he suggests referral to ADAPT would have made subsequent misconduct a near impossibility.  Although the Mental Health advisor refers to his letter from his psychologist as a letter of support, it was only with the psychologist’s help he was able to discuss his childhood experiences and his relationship with his OIC.  He also takes exception to the Mental Health Advisor’s contention his outstanding performance continued throughout his career, arguing what were once “firewall” ratings began to decline on the front of the last four EPRs after the abuse, and before his misconduct.  He disagrees the memorandum he cited from the SECDEF concerning PTSD applies to Vietnam Era Veterans alone, because the second paragraph says “carefully consider every petition based on PTSD brought by each veteran.”  Finally, he submits an additional professional opinion from his psychiatrist and an additional letter of support from his military supervisor at the time, both whom previously provided documentation for his original application.  He would like the Board to consider he was a sick person who desperately needed help and not a willfully bad person.  (Exhibit G)

THE BOARD CONCLUDES:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

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, to include his rebuttal response to the advisory opinion, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of AFPC/DPSOR and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  While we acknowledge the opinion of the AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor recommending the Board grant the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge because it is not clear he was referred for evaluation to the ADAPT Program immediately after his DUI arrest, we believe a preponderance of the evidence substantiates there is no error or injustice.  The Board believes the applicant’s criminal behavior in fleeing the scene of his hit-and-run accident, failing to report the accident to the police, subsequently driving another car while intoxicated, and smuggling illegal drugs into a foreign country constitute dangerous, reckless behavior and poor decision making for which he was rightly held accountable by his leadership, even if he did suffer from alcoholism at the time.  While the Board is not without sympathy for the applicant due to his illness, such afflicted individuals still carry the full responsibility for their actions, and his criminal activity clearly warranted the discharge he received.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

THE BOARD DETERMINES:

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-2015-02751 in Executive Session on 20 Oct 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair
	Member
Member

All members voted to correct the records as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Jun 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Clemency Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Jul 15, w/atch.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, DPSOR-SEP, dated 10 Nov 15.
Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor, dated 10 Aug 16.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 Aug 16. 
	Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.  

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.