RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:			DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2015-05276

						COUNSEL:

HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

2.  His narrative reason for separation (apathy and defective attitude) be changed to a medical discharge with medical severance pay.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was diagnosed with service disqualifying depression and he should have received a medical discharge.  A USAF dispensary note, dated 19 May 72, states that he should receive an honorable discharge because his duties were suffering not as a result of misbehavior, but due to his poor mental condition.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 13 Mar 72.  

On 19 May 72, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFM 39-12 for apathy, defective attitude and inability to expend effort constructively.  The specific reasons for this action was the applicant’s inability to adapt to military life and conform to the requirements of military service.  He was ordered to active duty status as a result of his failure to attend Air Force Reserve meetings regularly on active duty weekends.  Although his duty performance had been satisfactory since his enlistment, he was extremely nervous and hypertensive, as evidenced by medical authorities on 10 Apr 72.  He was diagnosed by medical authorities as possessing depression secondary to situational reaction.  Although there was no evidence of thought disorder his mood was described as depressed - suicidal ideation - no attempts.  In addition, his military bearing and personal behavior had been steadily deteriorating.

Additional  misconduct in the applicant’s record included being late for work on numerous occasions, late returning to duty from appointments, not letting supervisors know when departing for appointments, not following orders, having a negative attitude which affected his duty performance and other airman in his organization.  Further, Reserve Order A-935, dated 12 Oct 71, reflects the applicant was demoted from the grade of sergeant to the rank of airman first class effective 12 Oct 71, with a date of rank of 1 Aug 70.  The reason for the demotion is not a part of the record.  

On 25 May 72, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and elected to not submit a statement on his behalf.

According to letters from the applicant’s first sergeant and NCOIC, Medical Material Services, both dated 31 May 72, he made statements that if he was not released from active duty – he would go absent without leave (AWOL) or do anything to get out of the service.  He also stated he would take any kind of discharge just to get out of the service.

On 31 May 72, the discharge action was found legally sufficient and the discharge authority approved the recommendation on 2 Jun 72.

On 5 Jun 72, the applicant was furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge and was credited with 7 months and 21 days of active service.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit D.

A request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant on 16 Mar 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Psychiatric Consultant finds insufficient evidence to warrant a medical retirement; however, recommends upgrade of discharge characterization to an honorable and a change in reason for separation to Secretarial Authority.

The applicant was discharged from the Air Force almost 50 years ago.  The antique age of this case file made it extremely difficult for the applicant to locate supporting evidence to assist in his claim.  Since the AFBCMR is not an investigative agency it can only review the information provided by the applicant.  The case file is deficient in medical records and military records alone make it very challenging to formulate a comprehensive assessment of the case.

It is clear from the military record review that the applicant exhibited some pathological psychiatric symptoms; however, those can be due to a number of underlying conditions.  According to the memorandum from the applicant’s mental health evaluation, he had suffered from “depression secondary to situational reaction.”

On review of the applicant’s Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) records, he experienced a traumatic event that took place during his service, specifically the crash of the B-52 bomber on 31 Mar 72 near McCoy AFB.  The applicant reportedly participated in the clean-up post-crash.  Such an event could certainly result in the psychological disturbances in certain individuals.  However, there is no factual evidence to support the claim that the applicant had no behavioral issues prior to the accident, in fact, the applicant’s involuntary mobilization was a result of his non-compliance with the AFR meetings and therefore his attitude and dislike of the Air Force pre-dated the event of 1972.

Readdressing the applicant’s implicit desire for a medical retirement, 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 “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, 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 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.  Therefore, even though the DVA has granted compensation for the applicant’s Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), this evidence does not invalidate the appropriateness of the military discharge disposition.

However, working under the presumption of regularity, the applicant has not provided adequate evidence to recommend a medical retirement.  Instead, in accordance with the Liberal Considerations policy, recommend an upgrade of character of service and changing the reason for separation.

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel states the applicant’s symptoms of being anxious, depressed, hypertensive, and extremely nervous, should qualify him to receive liberal consideration as potential symptoms of PTSD from his recovery duties involving a plane crash.  There is a question whether the advisor gave these symptoms liberal consideration.  The opinion needs to explain how she arrived at the analogous diagnosis for Acute Adjustment Disorder when liberal consideration was given to these symptoms.  What is ironic is that the advisor appeared to give these symptoms liberal consideration for recommending an upgraded characterization of service, but not liberal consideration for the medical discharge.  So, for one recommendation, the advisor seems to recognize PTSD symptoms, but for the medical discharge, these symptoms received a different sort of treatment.

The advisor does two things that hopefully the Board will carefully scrutinize.  First, the advisor does not seem to give any weight to the VA medical records despite Secretary Hagel’s directive.  Second, the advisor does not consider the potential of multiple diagnoses co-existing.  The co-existing diagnoses (PTSD and depression secondary to circumstances) probably were both equally contributing to the behavior leading to discharge.

There is no doubt he suffered from chronic mental illness from his time in the Air Force to the present.  There is no doubt that he will struggle with that mental illness until the day he dies.  Nevertheless, the advisor pins the word “acute” to the undiscussed analogous diagnosis.  The evidence simply does not support the advisor’s conclusion that he had an Acute Adjustment Disorder.  Furthermore, if the advisor follows Secretary Hagel’s directive, an honorable discharge is appropriate because PTSD was an unknown phenomenon at the time, and his behavior was at least in part attributable to PTSD.  Also, because of liberal consideration, his behavior was the result of a psychological disability - PTSD that was comorbid with chronic adjustment disorder or major depressive disorder.  Because he was unfit as a result of a psychological disability, he should receive a medical separation and retirement.

A complete copy of the applicant’s rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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.  After a careful review of the applicant's contentions, documentation submitted in support of the request, and the available evidence of record (not including service medical records), we are not convinced the applicant has provided sufficient evidence for us to conclude that he is the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant was discharged from the Air Force over 45 years ago.  We note the AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor recommends denial of the applicant’s request; however, she recommends an upgrade of the discharge characterization to an honorable and a change in the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority in accordance with the Liberal Consideration policy.  We disagree.  In this respect, we note the applicant’s poor behavior and misconduct predated the trauma he experienced, specifically, the crash of the B-52 bomber in Mar 72.  Additionally, there is no factual evidence to support the claim that the applicant had no behavioral issues prior to the accident, in fact, the applicant’s involuntary mobilization was a result of his non-compliance with the AFR meetings and therefore his attitude and dislike of the Air Force pre-dated event of 1972.  We believe his misconduct warranted the characterization received.  As previously noted by the applicant’s first sergeant and the NCOIC, Medical Material Services, he made statements that he would go absent without leave (AWOL) or do anything to get out of the service and  take any kind of discharge just to get out of the service.  Regarding his request for a medical retirement, although the DVA granted compensation for the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), this evidence does not invalidate the appropriateness of the military discharge disposition.  Under the presumption of regularity, there is not adequate evidence to recommend a medical retirement.  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-2015-05276 in Executive Session on 14 Nov 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Dec 15, w/atchs.	Exhibit B.  Excerpts from Master Personnel Records. 	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 Mar 16, w/atch.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor,
  		  dated 22 Jun 17.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 31 Oct 17, w/atch.
	Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, not dated.

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 pertaining to Docket Number BC-2015-05276.