ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02535 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge, and the narrative reason for discharge on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed from “homosexual admission” to “liberal consideration of PTSD” (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder). RESUME OF THE CASE: On 19 Mar 13 and 28 Mar 13, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable, and to change the narrative reason for separation on his DD form 214 to something more appropriate. In the original case, the applicant contended: a.  His discharge was inappropriately handled and involved unethical conduct and ambiguity. b.  His Article 15, Letters of Reprimand (LORs), and Letters of Counseling (LOCs) were in–service correction actions and do not provide a legal basis for a less than honorable service characterization. c.  There is no justification for a less than honorable service characterization because the positive aspects of his service outweigh the negative aspects. d.  The malicious nature of his exposure and resulting ridicule warrants an upgrade of service characterization. e.  The less than honorable discharge negatively impacts his employment opportunities. f.  He has to explain every time he shows his DD Form 214 as to why he received a less than honorable discharge even after going to Iraq several times. In his rebuttal to the staff advisories, the applicant noted that if he was not granted the relief requested, he did not want his narrative reason for discharge changed because the recommended change to “Drug Rehabilitation Failure” would further damage his life. The Board determined insufficient relevant evidence had been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice, noting that while the applicant contended the positive aspects of his services outweighed the negative aspects, the evidence of record clearly show a pattern of disciplinary infractions. Further, since his discharge was not solely based on homosexual conduct but was also based on his failure to complete treatment for drug abuse, there is no basis to change his narrative reason for separation due to the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT). Finally, in the interest of justice the Board considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency, however, they did not find the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant clemency. 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 H. On 25 Sep 14, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration, seeking to change his type of discharge from “general (under honorable conditions” to “honorable,” and to change his narrative reason for discharge from “homosexual admission” to “secretarial authority.” He contends new guidance from the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF), dated 3 Dec 14, indicates his discharge should be upgraded on the basis of liberal consideration for PTSD. His condition was first diagnosed in 2005 as “adjustment disorder,” then later rated by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) with a 70 percent disability rating. His argument has always been that PTSD was the primary driver of his discharge. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit I. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant has applied for discharge upgrade numerous times: three times to the Discharge Review Board (DRB) and now twice to the BCMR. The first appeal to the DRB resulted in his discharge being upgraded from under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to general (under honorable conditions.) In his current appeal he contends his PTSD, diagnosed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), was the reason for his poor conduct during his military service, and argues that he should receive “liberal consideration” for PTSD based on the 3 Sep 14 SECDEF Memorandum. Unfortunately, the cited SECDEF memo only applies to the Vietnam era Veterans, and the applicant is not a Vietnam era Veteran. PTSD was not recognized as a psychiatric condition until the 1980s. The applicant did not submit DVA medical records to confirm his diagnosis of PTSD, nor the Department of Defense (DoD) medical records which reflect his treatment in behavioral health while he was on active duty. However, this psychiatric consultant can infer the applicant had access to care as was needed. He was also evaluated by the AF substance abuse specialists. In this case, the applicant’s misconduct leading up to administrative discharge was not due to his PTSD, but due to his substance abuse. Leaving the substance abuse program without permission and selling one’s body for sex-related purposes in order to obtain money for drugs would not be typical for persons with PTSD, but is not that uncommon in the drug addicted individuals. Which brings us to the question “Did he develop substance abuse as a result of his PTSD?” The applicant certainly claims so. However, he had Article 15 charges for alcohol related misconduct even prior to his 1st deployment, which is the strong evidence that substance abuse related issues existed even prior to his development of PTSD. Furthermore, a review of the applicant’s Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) shows almost perfect performance from 2003-2006, which is not consistent with PTSD, since one would expect a global impairment in function and, per DSM V diagnostic criteria, would cause “significant social, occupational, or other distress.” The Psychiatric Consultant opines that the applicant’s substance abuse probably coexisted with his PTSD and was not a product of it, and it was his substance abuse that was responsible for his misconduct leading up to his discharge. Recommend denial of the applicant’s request. A complete copy of the AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor evaluation is at Exhibit J. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In further support of his request, the applicant submitted a rebuttal taking exception to the advisory opinion and contending: he is disgusted with the accusation he was selling his body for sex-related purposes in order to obtain money for drugs, and he goes on to explain his state of emotions and true rationale for making a pornographic movie; the citation from the urinalysis chapter of the AFI which states “if the urinalysis result is the sole basis for discharge, the member would receive an honorable discharge,” and he argues this precludes the Board from using the results of his Commander-directed urinalysis for anything less than an Honorable discharge; his AWOL was described as being for 42 hours, but it was no more than 24 hours and he did go back voluntarily; although he takes full responsibility for his deviant behavior, he did not deserve to be treated like scum; his departure from the treatment facility was irresponsible, but not dishonorable or criminal; and, the “liberal consideration” for PTSD addressed in the SECDEF 3 Sep 14 memorandum was not meant to apply just to Vietnam-era veterans as the advisory states (Exhibits L and M). THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: In earlier findings, the Boards determined there was insufficient evidence to warrant any corrective action. After thoroughly reviewing the additional documentation submitted in support of his current appeal and the evidence of record, we believe 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 opinion and recommendation of the AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor and adopt her rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of 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-2012-02535 in Executive Session on 24 Mar 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit H.  Record of Proceedings, dated 9 Apr 13, w/atchs. Exhibit I.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Sep 15, w/atchs. Exhibit J.  Memorandum, AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor, dated18 Feb 16. Exhibit K.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Feb 16. Exhibit L.  Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Feb 16. Exhibit M.  Letter, DVA, dated 10 Mar 16, w/atchs.