RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-01830

	COUNSEL: 

	HEARING: NOT ANNOTATED

APPLICANT’S REQUEST.  Through counsel, his discharge upgraded to honorable, he be medically retired, and he receive all other relief as appropriate.  

APPLICANT’S CONTENTION.  His medical conditions rendered him incapable of performing his duties prior to his discharge.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS.  The applicant is a former regular Air Force captain.  

On 30 Nov 11, a Board of Inquiry (BOI) convened and recommended a under honorable conditions (general) discharge after finding the applicant engaged in serious, recurring misconduct, to include:

1.	6 Sep 09 – violated Article 134 Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), drunk and disorderly; and violated Article 112, drunk on duty.

2.	9 May 10 - violated Article 134 Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), drunk and disorderly.

3.	12 Nov 10 – violated Article 111, controlling a vehicle while drunk; and Article 133, derelict in performance of his duties as a commissioned officer in a public place while drunk and disorderly.

4.	Between 13 Jan 11 and 9 May 11 – nine violations of Article 86.

5.	Between 31 Mar 11 and 8 Apr 11 – three violations of Article 92. 

On 9 Mar 12, the 13 AF/JA found the BOI report to be legally sufficient, an on 12 Mar 12, the 13 AF/CC forwarded the BOI recommendation to the Air Force Personnel Center.  

On 19 Apr 12, USAF/JAA found the administrative discharge BOI to be legally sufficient.   

On 20 Jul 12, the director, Air Force Review Board Agency, directed the applicant be discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge, 

On 2 Aug 12, the applicant was furnished a under honorable conditions discharge with a narrative reason for separation of misconduct (serious offense). 

On 27 May 16, the AFBCMR staff notified the applicant he had not exhausted all available effective administrative remedies (Air Force Discharge Review Board) prior to requesting relief of the Board, and the application will be denied by the Board on that basis (Exhibit C).

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits D and E.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION.  The AFBCMR Medical Advisor did not find evidence sufficient to warrant a medical basis for a discharge due to the applicant’s somatic complaints; however, defers to the staff psychiatrist for the Board’s consideration.  In his review of the case, the BCMR Medical Advisor states alcoholism or alcohol dependence, albeit considered a “disease” by many, is not considered a compensable or ratable medical condition by the Department of Veterans Affairs nor the Department of Defense.  Nevertheless, the applicant was prescribed psychotropic medications reportedly for the treatment of anxiety and depression.  The multiple stressors experienced by the applicant, depending upon his inherent coping strategies over a several-year period, could have resulted in use of alcohol as a mode of self-relief.  Unfortunately, the applicant chose to continue to abuse alcohol, even when provided the necessary outpatient and inpatient care and support.  The applicant may yet find it prudent address his petition for upgrade of discharge characterization via application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board.  

The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

The AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor opines the applicant has not met the burden of proof of error or injustice that warrants a medical retirement, however, recommends the Board consider an upgrade of discharge characterization to honorable in accordance with the “Liberal Considerations” supplemental guidance issued by the Secretary of Defense in February of 2016 (see Exhibit B).  This guidance certainly applies to this particular applicant.  PTSD can be comorbid/coexist with other conditions such as drug and alcohol abuse.  It can also contribute to the development of other psychiatric conditions, such as alcohol and substance abuse.  In the applicant’s case, the misconduct leading up to administrative discharge was not due to PTSD, but due to the substance abuse.  Which brings the Board to the chicken or the egg dilemma “did the applicant develop substance abuse as a result of his PTSD?”  The applicant was carefully evaluated throughout various stages of his substance abuse treatment and it was documented that the development of his anxiety dated back 5-6 years prior to deployments.  Furthermore, it was further exacerbated by his son’s developmental disabilities, marital discord, substance abuse and work-related stressors, with the substance abuse possibly being the biggest player, since it directly and indirectly effected all the other variables.

There is clear documentation by multiple providers that the applicant has extensive family history of substance abuse and he abused alcohol for many years, starting in his late teens, prior to his first deployment.  Therefore, there is a strong evidence that substance abuse related issues existed prior to the development of any other psychiatric disorders.  Therefore, the applicant’s substance abuse most likely coexisted with his anxiety disorder and was not a product of it, and it is his substance abuse that was responsible for his misconduct leading up to his discharge.

The complete advisory is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION.  The Board sent a copies of the Air Force evaluations to the applicant’s counsel on 3 Aug 17 for comment (Exhibit D).  

THE BOARD CONCLUDES:

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  With regard to the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge to honorable, we note this Board is the highest administrative level of appeal within the Air Force.  As such, an applicant must first exhaust all available avenues of administrative relief provided by existing law or regulations prior to seeking relief before this Board, as required by the governing Air Force Instruction.  In view of this, we find this application is not ripe for adjudication at this level as there exists a subordinate level of appeal that has not first been depleted.  Therefore, in view of the above, we find no basis to act on this portion of his request.  

4.  Furthermore, after thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an error and injustice with regard to his request for a medical retirement   The Board agrees with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

5.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS:  With regard to the request to upgrade his discharge, the APPLICANT be informed that all available avenues of administrative relief have not been exhausted, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of documentary evidence indicating that such avenues of administrative relief have been exhausted.  

Furthermore, the APPLICANT be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice with regard to a medical retirement; 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.  

CERTIFICATION:  The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2017-01056 in Executive Session on 21 Mar 18.

Panel Chair
Panel Member
Panel Member

The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A: Applicant’s application, DD Form 149, dated 17 Dec 15, w/atchs.
Exhibit B: Documentary evidence, including excerpts from official records, and Record of Proceedings, BC-2008-00904.
Exhibit C: Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 May 16, w/atch.
Exhibit D: Advisory, BCMR Medical Advisor, dated 10 Apr 17.
Exhibit E: Advisory, BCMR Psychiatric Advisor, dated 3 Jul 17.
Exhibit F: Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBR to applicant, dated 3 Aug 17.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.