ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02962 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to General (Under Honorable Conditions). ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: By virtue of an application dated 1 Aug 09, the applicant requested that his 29 Jun 04 UOTHC discharge be upgraded to Honorable. He contended his discharge was unjust because he was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and should have been medically discharged following his initial mental evaluation. On 1 Sep 10, the Board considered and denied applicant’s original request. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s original request and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit F. In his current submission, dated 17 Jun 11, the applicant requests reconsideration of his case. He is now requesting his discharge of UOTHC be upgraded to General (Under Honorable Conditions) based upon new evidence. He reiterates his PTSD was not properly considered and he should have been medically discharged. In support of his latest submission, the applicant provides as new evidence a copy of his Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rating decision indicating his PTSD is service connected with a combined compensable disability rating of 50 percent. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. The military service disability system, operating under Title 10, United States Code (USC), can only offer compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries which specifically rendered a member unfit for continued military service and were the cause for career termination, and then only for the degree of impairment present at the "snap shot" time of separation and not based on future disease progression. Thus, the mere presence of a medical condition during military service does not automatically constitute a basis for a disability separation or retirement. On the other hand, the DVA disability system, operating under Title 38, USC, takes into account physical conditions that, although not unfitting at the time of separation, may later progress in severity and alter the individual’s lifestyle and future employability. With this in mind, Title 38, USC, provides the DVA authority to award compensation ratings for conditions that were not unfitting for military service at the time of separation. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) at Exhibit H. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error of injustice with regard to the applicant’s court- martial or Article 15. The applicant has alleged injustice in his lack of treatment and consideration by the Air Force of his diagnosis of PTSD. Based upon the applicant’s personnel record, his application, and the information included in the Air Force Automated Military Justice Analysis and Management System (AMJAMS), there is no apparent error or injustice in how the court-martial was conducted. The applicant pled guilty at trial to the charge and specifications. On the court’s acceptance of the applicant’s guilty plea, it received evidence in aggravation, as well as in extenuation and mitigation, prior to crafting an appropriate sentence for the crimes committed. There is also no error in the processing of the Article 15. There is no indication the applicant’s rights were violated during the course of this process and the commander who imposed the punishment did not do so in an arbitrary or capricious manner. The applicant had the opportunity to submit written matters to, and have a hearing with, the commander imposing nonjudicial punishment. The applicant also had the chance to contest his commander’s decisions and appeal to the next higher commander. The applicant has not provided any support for a grant of clemency from the Board on either of the applicant’s military justice actions. A complete copy of AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit H. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant resubmitted his DD Form 149 in response to the Air Force advisory (Exhibit J). ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. We have thoroughly reviewed the evidence of record and considered the weight and relevance of the additional documentation provided by the applicant, and whether or not it was discoverable at the time of any previous application. It appears the applicant believes the DVA's decision to award him a 50 percent disability compensation rating for PTSD substantiates that he should have been discharged for physical disability rather than being discharged for abuse of illegal drugs. However, after a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, we are not persuaded that he should have been found unfit for continued military service and furnished a disability separation. In this respect, we note the military service disability system can only offer compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries which specifically rendered a member unfit for continued military service and that were the cause for career termination. The applicant has provided no evidence whatsoever that his medical condition, while service related according to the DVA, rendered him unfit for continued military service. In fact, the applicant served successfully for many years while under Air Force medical care and treatment. Therefore, while we find the additional information provided by the applicant both new and relevant, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 2. 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. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2011-02962 in Executive Session on 12 Apr 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-02962 was considered: Exhibit F. Record of Proceeding, dated 1 Sep 10, w/atchs. Exhibit G. DD Form 149, dated 17 Jun 11, w/atch. Exhibit H. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 24 Oct 11. Exhibit I. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Nov 11. Exhibit J. Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Jan 12.