RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00799 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable or a medical discharge. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His discharge was in error and unjust. While on active duty, he was experiencing the symptoms and traits for a depression and anxiety disorder. However, the military medical providers failed to diagnose and treat his condition. His condition contributed to his actions and subsequent discharge. After being discharged, his civilian medical provider diagnosed him with depression and anxiety disorder. The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) has determined his condition was service connected and awarded him a 50 percent disability rating. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 31 Jan 79, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the Regular Air Force. On 3 Nov 80, the applicant’s commander notified him he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for unsuitability (apathy and defective attitude). The reasons for the action were the applicant’s failure to maintain prescribed standards of dress, personal appearance, and military deportment. The following derogatory information was cited in the notification for discharge: removal from the Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation Program (DARP), failure to report for duty, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failing to have his hair properly trimmed, NJP failure to go from his appointed place of duty, NJP for failure to have his hair and mustache properly trimmed, Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failure to report for duty. The notification for discharge also indicated the applicant was counseled on several occasions regarding dress, appearance, and proper wear of uniform. He underwent urinalysis and tested positive for Phencyclidine (PCP), placement on remedial training for Career Development Course (CDC) Volume II, dishonored check notification. The applicant stated to a fellow airman that he had tried several ways to get out of the Air Force but had not succeeded. On 3 Nov 80, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action. An evaluation officer was appointed who interviewed the applicant, reviewed his records and case file, and recommended the applicant be furnished a general discharge certificate without probation and rehabilitation. On 24 Nov 80, the legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support separation and recommended the applicant be furnished a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation. The discharge authority directed the applicant be furnished a general discharge and the applicant was so discharged on 5 Dec 80 and was credited with one year, ten months, and four days of total active service. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. There was no evidence submitted showing the applicant was unfit to perform his duties due to a mental disorder at the time of his involuntary discharge. Although the applicant was treated for various medical conditions throughout his military service, there was no indication of a mental condition that would warrant consideration through the disability evaluation system (DES). The applicant’s records did not contain any mental health assessments or episodes of care that reflect an impairment of function that rendered him non-worldwide qualified or warranted referral to a medical evaluation board (MEB). The DES was established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force and can, by law, only offer compensation for those service incurred diseases or injures which specifically rendered a service member unfit for continued active 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 developments. In the applicant’s case, he did not have a diagnosable mental disorder that interfered with his ability to perform military service or which would qualify for processing through the military DES. In fact, his record contained several instances of minor disciplinary infractions and numerous instances of his desire to leave military service. The fact that the DVA has established a nexus between the applicant's post-service mental health diagnosis, his military service and his mood (2011 examination) is not proof of error of reason for release from service, nor does it validate a failure to properly diagnose during the applicant's military service or at the time of his release from military service. The DVA operates under a different set of laws and is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition that was incurred during military service, without regard to its demonstrated or proven impact upon a service member's retainability, fitness to serve, or narrative reason for separation. Moreover, the DVA may adjust (increase or decrease) disability ratings as the level of impairment from a given medical condition may vary (worsen or improve) over the lifetime of the veteran. This is reason why an individual may be discharged for one reason and then later receive a compensation rating for a clinical diagnosis that was not militarily unfitting at the time of discharge. A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 26 Apr 13, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. ________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. When determining punishment, the commander has authority to consider all circumstances regarding the offenses. Throughout his military service, the applicant acted in a manner that was not consistent with Air Force standards of good order and discipline by demonstrating an extreme lack of integrity. Due to the applicant’s lackluster duty performance and defective attitude he was not considered a good candidate for retention. The documentation in the applicant’s master personnel records indicates the discharge, to include his characterization of service, was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge manual and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: While on active duty, he was having severe psychological issues. His issues were not diagnosed by staff whose due diligence would have dictated a closer look at his mental health. The failure of being diagnosed and treated for his mental issues resulted in his discharge. His commander was not aware of his mental condition. However, ignorance does not excuse, nor make his punishment by a general discharge, acceptable. His condition was not diagnosed by those charged with his care and well-being. He was punished for symptoms of a mental disorder. It also noted his behavior/character was labeled as “an extreme lack of integrity.” This should be removed as it implies the circumstances of his situation were more severe than dress code violations, etc. Since leaving the military he has not had any legal issues. He has never been arrested and has a good credit score. His usefulness in the Air Force was diminished by his mental issues. He has been able to survive after military life with medication. His records show he was prescribed four different anti-anxiety medications. His evidence supports that he was suffering from mental condition while on active duty. His discharge was processed with extreme prejudice. He was not a good candidate to keep on active duty; however, it was an undiagnosed medical/mental condition that led directly to his discharge. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission, to include his rebuttal response, and his contentions were duly noted. However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions and the documentation presented in support of his appeal sufficient to override the rationale provided by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR). Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and the Air Force OPR and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant 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 relief sought in this application. 4. 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 issue(s) 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-2013-00799 in Executive Session on 10 Dec 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Feb 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 24 Apr 13. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Apr13. Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 29 May 13. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jun 13. Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs. 1 2