SECOND ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-00480 xxxxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Her general discharge be upgraded to a medical discharge. 2. The narrative reason for separation be changed to read medical rather than misconduct. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 4 Feb 03, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s request to have her general discharge be upgraded to honorable, reimbursement of monies she paid into the Montgomery GI Bill and to change the narrative reason for separation from misconduct to Secretarial Authority. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding her requests and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings, with Exhibits, at Exhibit G. On 11 Oct 07, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s request for reconsideration to have her general discharge upgraded to honorable. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding his request, and the rationale for the earlier decision by the Board, see the Addendum to the Record of Proceedings, with attachments, which is at Exhibit O. By virtue of a DD Form 149 dated 19 Jul 11, the applicant again requests reconsideration of her request for her general discharge for misconduct to be changed to a medical discharge. She contends that her recent diagnosis for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) is evidence that her symptoms while in the Air Force were related to PTSD and not a personality disorder. In support of her request, the applicant provides two expanded statements and copies of excerpts of records related to her Discharge Review Board (DRB) proceedings, as well as correspondence related to the aforementioned determination by the DVA. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit P. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change her general (under honorable conditions) discharge for misconduct to a medical discharge, noting the new evidence presented by the applicant does not meet the burden of proof of an error or injustice. Although the DVA has established a nexus between the applicant's diagnosed PTSD and her military service, the evidence does not infer nor prove that PTSD was, or should have been, the condition that caused the termination of her military service. Under Title 38, United States Code, the DVA is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition established as service connected without regard to its proven or demonstrated impact upon a member's retainability, fitness to serve, narrative reason for release from military service, or the length of intervening time since discharge. The DVA is also empowered to conduct periodic re- evaluations for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating award as the level of impairment from a given medical condition may vary over the lifetime of the veteran. The fact the applicant received a compensation rating for PTSD does not, in and of itself, invalidate the narrative reason for her separation, the accuracy of service mental assessments, nor is it reflective of or proof of any possible causal or mitigating relationship with her acts of misconduct. The preponderance of the evidence indicates the applicant's exhibited maladaptive pattern of behavior was more likely the result of an Adjustment Disorder and/or Personality Disorder, rather than PTSD. Notwithstanding the above, the AFBCMR Medical Consultant shares the expressed belief of previous medical advisors that she could more appropriately have been separated due to a Personality Disorder and/or Adjustment Disorder, rather than for misconduct, even though she could have retained the general (under honorable conditions) character of service. However, changing her narrative reason for separation to “Personality Disorder” may not result in the desirable occupational opportunities, and could be viewed as further detriment to the applicant. Therefore, in collective consideration of all the facts and circumstances of this case, and the probably missed opportunity to separate the applicant under an alternative basis other than misconduct, the Board should consider changing the applicant’s narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority” and upgrading her discharge to honorable based upon the preponderance of evidence of poor adaptability to military service as a matter of clemency. A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit Q. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 22 Mar 12 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit R). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: After careful consideration of the applicant’s reconsideration request and the documentation she submitted, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to change the previous decisions by the Board. The applicant believes she is entitled to a medical discharge based on the disability rating rendered by the DVA for her PTSD. However, we do not find the evidence of record is sufficient to conclude that PTSD was the basis for the termination of her career. We note the observation by the current BCMR Medical Consultant that he shares the belief of previous medical advisors the applicant could have been more appropriately separated due to an Adjustment and/or Personality disorder. However, since this is not a request of the applicant and could, as indicated by the BCMR Medical Consultant, be considered a detrimental action to the applicant, we do not consider this an appropriate correction to make to the applicant’s record. Likewise, we are also not persuaded, based on the applicant’s stated requests and the fact the evidence of record does not support that an error has occurred, that the applicant’s narrative reason for separation should be changed to “Secretarial Authority.” Therefore, in view of the foregoing, the Board finds no basis upon which to recommend granting the requested relief. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-00480 in Executive Session on 24 Apr 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-00480 was considered: Exhibit O. Addendum to the Record of Proceedings, dated 14 Nov 07, w/Exhibits. Exhibit P. DD Form 149, dated 19 Jul 11, w/atchs Exhibit Q. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 21 Mar 12. Exhibit R. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 Mar 12.