RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2016-00766

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be corrected to a medical discharge.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was made incorrectly.  He should have received a medical discharge.  The Veterans Administration found he has Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) with alcohol abuse.  He did not receive the correct treatment from the Air Force which affected his life.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 9 May 06, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force.

On 22 Jul 09, the applicant was furnished an Under Honorable Conditions (General) discharge, and was credited with 3 years, 2 months, and 14 days active service.

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of error or injustice.

The applicant’s service treatment records indicate he participated in periodic preventive health evaluations during his period of service, to include hearing conservation, respiratory protection and use of a respirator, and other evaluations required for firefighters.  He also presented for care for acute minor illnesses during his service.

A review of his post-deployment questionnaire, completed on 9 May 08, reflects no disclosure of traumatic exposures, e.g., dead bodies, no exposure to blasts or explosions, no experiences that were so frightening, horrible, or upsetting in the past month that caused nightmares, avoidance, being watchful or easily startled, or feeling down or hopeless.  The applicant characterized his overall health as “excellent.”  The provider entered the summary comment, “No concerns at this time.”  During his Periodic Health Assessment conducted on 16 Dec 08, the applicant, again, denied emotional problems/concerns and denied interpersonal relationship problems.

On 11 May 09, the applicant presented for a mental health (MH) evaluation, reportedly referred by his commander, due to a specific incident; driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence of alcohol.  The provider conducted a mental health assessment and found the “client fit for duty.”  No discernable abnormalities of behavior, mood, concentration, judgement, memory, and thought content were noted.  Under the 5-Axis diagnostic format, the provider entered “No diagnosis”; under Axis I, “No diagnosis or conditions”; under Axis II, refers the reader to MH records for Axis III, “No diagnosis”; under Axis IV, and Axis V, Global Assessment of Functioning = 71-80.  A recommendation was made for the applicant to attend three alcohol brief counseling sessions.  He was also counseled on avoidance of driving while intoxicated and the risks of unsafe sex, after reporting some high risk sexual behaviors.

The applicant’s separation history and physical document, completed on 29 Jun 09, discloses a history of a hand sprain, long-term chronic back pain which was evaluated in Physical Therapy and characterized as “situational.”  Among concluding remarks, the provider entered, hand sprain, resolved, no fracture, back pain, chronic long-term.  There is no entry with respect to a mood or behavioral disorder.

A preponderance of service medical records fail to show an impairment suggestive of emergence or display of PTSD as a probable reason for cutting short his military career.  There are no mental health profiles issued or medications prescribed prohibiting worldwide qualification for any duration of significance that would have warranted referral for a Medical Evaluation Board.

The reviewer is aware the applicant was referred to a mental health provider due to either driving while intoxicated (DWI) or under the influence of alcohol.  While alcohol abuse or habituation may accompany any number of disorders, this singular offense of record alone does not justify a change in the reason for discharge.

Additionally, unlike the Military Department, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition determined service-incurred, without regard to [and independent of] its demonstrated or proven impact upon a service member’s retainability, fitness to serve, or the narrative reason for separation; whereas the Military Department compensates for the medical condition(s) that cause career termination.  With this in mind, Title 38, U.S.C., which governs the DVA compensation system, was written to allow awarding compensation ratings for conditions that were not unfitting for military service or at the time of separation.  This is the reason why an individual can be found fit for release from military service for one reason and yet sometime thereafter receive a compensation rating from the DVA for one or more medical conditions that were service-connected, but not proven militarily unfitting at the time of release from military service.

The record does not reflect the applicant suffered from PTSD during his service nor that it was unfitting or interfered with his ability to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, and rating.  The applicant is free to submit additional evidence, e.g., VA ratings decisions, Compensation & Pension examinations, to support his case.  As it stands currently, the burden of proof of error or injustice has not been met to warrant the desired change of the record.  A review by a psychiatrist or psychologist should be conducted, in accordance with Section 521, National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2015.

A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

BCMR Psychiatric Advisor recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of error or injustice.

Information highlighted beyond medical consultant’s summary include the applicant’s positive response to “used illegal drugs or abused prescription drugs” on his Report of Medical History dated 13 Apr 06.  Additionally, during the period May 06 – Jan 08, the applicant received “above average” ratings on four out of five Enlisted Performance Reports (EPR).  The final EPR for the period Jan 08 – Jan 09 was rated two out of five for a referral report.

On 13 Apr 12, the applicant contacted the Veterans Administration (VA) National Suicide Prevention Hotline stating he was upset and shaking after an argument with his girlfriend.  He stated he was poorly treated by the Air Force and was put out three weeks after he received a DWI.  He further stated he was homeless until his girlfriend took him in.  He was trying to get his General discharge upgraded to Honorable, but the VA had not gotten back with him.  He also claimed he used marijuana and alcohol but did not think he had a problem with either.

On 26 Jun 13, a Compensation & Pension (C&P) mental disorders examination was conducted by the DVA, resulting in a diagnosis of PTSD and alcohol abuse.

On 9 Oct 13, the applicant contacted the VA National Suicide Prevention Hotline, distressed that his PTSD disability claim was denied.

DVA Telephone Liaison Care notes from 6 Aug 14 reflect the applicant was not interested in follow up with the mental health clinic.

On 18 Aug 14, notes from Physical Medicine Rehab reflects the applicant was unable to keep a job due to pain and had been to vocational rehab, with laboratory tests on 20 Aug 14 reflecting positive confirmation of marijuana.

Applicant contacted VA National Suicide Prevention Hotline twice more, on 19 Dec 16 and 10 Mar 17, primarily to inquire about his discharge upgrade for untreated PTSD and interest in increasing his service connection due to symptoms of PTSD which led to homelessness and substance abuse.

The OPR brings to the Board’s attention the deficiency of vital military records upon which to make a recommendation.  Despite the applicant’s administrative discharge for Misconduct-Serious Offense, the OPR was unable to find any evidence of disciplinary/administrative actions that took place prior to separation or any written rebuttal by the applicant for these charges.

Analyzing the information available, it is challenging to find a link between the applicant’s misconduct and his reported trauma.  During the DVA’s C&P exam, the applicant reported two traumatic events took place in Nov and Dec 08; however, his referral EPR covered the entire 2008 period and the statements in the EPR imply long-standing issues as opposed to a recent adverse event.  Furthermore, the applicant received a DWI in May 09 and it was not covered by the referral EPR, which ended in Jan 09.  Additionally, the review of the applicant’s Report of Medical History revealed pre-military experimentation with drugs.   Therefore, it appears the applicant had significant conduct and performance difficulties prior to the events that left such a traumatic impression on him.

Readdressing the applicant’s request for a medical discharge, the military Disability Evaluation System (DES), established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law, under Title 10 USC, 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 USC, 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.  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.

Working under the presumption of regularity, unless additional information is presented for the review, the OPR would not be able to prove an error or injustice took place.

A complete copy of the BCMR Psychiatric Advisor evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 28 Nov 17 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

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.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the BCMR Medical Consultant and the Psychiatric Advisor and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  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-2016-00766 in Executive Session on 13 Mar 18 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-00766 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Feb 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Excerpt from Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated
4 May 16.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, BCMR Psychiatric Advisor, dated
			  14 Nov 17.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 28 Nov 17, w/atchs.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations regarding AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-00766, and the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.