RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02845 EGA COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her records be corrected to reflect she received a medical discharge. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: While on active duty she did not receive the appropriate mental health evaluation or care. Her physical and mental issues started in 2001. She was involved in two motor vehicle accidents and was sexually assaulted. She used alcohol and pain medication to cope and hide the physical pain and trauma of being sexually assaulted. In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a statement and documents extracted from her Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) medical records. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 21 December 1999, the applicant commenced her enlistment in the Regular Air Force. On 12 November 2002, the applicant’s commander notified her that he was recommending her discharge from the Air Force for misconduct-minor disciplinary infractions. The reasons for the discharge action included the applicant’s receipt of nine Letters of Counseling (LOC) for failure to complete Career Development Courses (CDC), failure to a obey regulation, failure to perform her duties, and failure to wear safety protection when required; four Letters of Reprimand (LOR) for failure to complete CDCs, missing a mandatory formation, and failure to perform her duties; and an Article 15 for going from her appointed place of duty without authority The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge that numerous attempts were provided to the applicant to meet Air Force standards, however, all attempts were unsuccessful. The commander further noted the applicant did not have any medical or other data meriting consideration. On 19 November 2002, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and, after consulting with legal counsel, elected to submit a statement in response to the action. The applicant noted in her response to the discharge action that she had been involved in a motor vehicle accident and was being targeted because of the many appointments she had on and off duty for treatment of her injuries from the accident. She further indicated that the treatment she was undergoing made it difficult for her to dedicate herself to her career, but that once her treatment was over she was willing to give it 110 percent. She further noted her ability to serve was impacted by her youth and immaturity. On 22 November 2002, the discharge authority directed the applicant be furnished a general discharge and the applicant was so discharged and credited with 2 years, 5 months, and 22 days of total active service. According to documentation provided by the applicant, the DVA granted the applicant service connection for a variety of medical conditions, to include Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), in August 2012. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. Based on the documentation on file in the applicant’s master personnel records, the discharge to include her character of service was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant has not provided any evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. According to AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airman, paragraph 1.18.2, a general discharge is appropriate when "significant negative aspects of the airman's conduct or performance of duty outweighs positive aspects of the airman's military record." The applicant's misconduct clearly outweighed the positive aspects of her service. The commander stated before recommending the discharge, every effort was made by the applicant’s supervision to rehabilitate her. The applicant received numerous verbal and written counselings, LOR's and an Article 15, due to her misconduct on and off duty. The applicant demonstrated a lack of respect for authority and a total disregard for polices and procedure throughout her military service. Her records further showed she was counseled repeatedly and afforded an opportunity to overcome her deficiencies. The discharge authority approved a general discharge based on the applicant’s overall performance. Her misconduct disrupted good order, discipline, and morale with the military community; hence, the discharge was appropriate. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice to warrant changing the applicant’s narrative reason for separation. Under the provisions of AFI 48-123, Medical Examinations and Standards, to qualify for a medical separation or retirement, there must be a disqualifying medical condition that interferes with duty or worldwide qualification, as would be reflected through profile restrictions of a sufficient level, e.g., “S-4” and duration (12 or more months), thereby initiating a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The applicant’s profile designations were all “S-1” worldwide qualified. The adjustment disorder mentioned in her Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention & Treatment (ADAPT) progress notes would not have qualified for a medical discharge. It wasn’t until several years after leaving military service that the applicant presented/reported signs and symptoms consistent with PTSD. It was not until her August 2012 Compensation and Pension (C&P) examination that it was determined she suffered from PTSD that was attributed to military sexual trauma. The applicant elected not to disclose the true circumstances of her sexual encounter to anyone, but only reported it as a possible sexually transmitted disease (STD) exposure. However, she did disclose the name of the individual in order that treatment of any medical condition could be provided to them both. Furthermore, there is no evidence of pharmacologic treatment or psychotherapy for a mental disorder in the applicant’s military medical records. The Medical Consultant concedes it appears counterintuitive to allow an administrative discharge to stand for several minor disciplinary infractions for an individual possibly tormented during this period due to sexual trauma; or at least since leaving military service. However, in the absence of service clinical evidence of a diagnosable, compensable, and unfitting mental disorder during the applicant's military service, it is virtually impossible, through the extensive passage of time, to now invalidate the reason for the applicant's discharge for acts of misconduct that appear to have no demonstrable relationship with her military sexual trauma; particularly in the context of the applicant's failure to timely disclose the facts of her case for proper intervention until several years after release from service. Moreover, although the unreported and unprosecuted crime of rape may have occurred during the applicant's military service, the apparent delayed clinical manifestations (or delayed reporting) of symptoms consistent with PTSD, as noted at her subsequent DVA examination in August 2012 and thereafter, are not determinative that PTSD was either a diagnosable or an unfitting medical condition at the time of her release from service. Finally, the DVA is the safety net authorized, under Title 38 United States Code (U.S.C.), to offer compensation for any medical condition with an established nexus with military service, without regard its proven impact upon a former service member's retainability, fitness to serve, narrative reason for release from service, or the duration of time passed since separation. The Military Department, operating under Title 10, U.S.C., can only offer compensation for an illness or injury that is the cause for career termination. The decision is based upon the evidence present at the "snap shot" in time of military service, and not that which presents several years after release from service. This is the reason why an individual may be released from service for one reason and later receive a compensation rating for one or more medical conditions that were not considered militarily unfitting or rendered the individual eligible for military disability processing at the time of release from military service. The DVA is also empowered to conduct periodic re-evaluations for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating determinations (increase or decrease) as the level of impairment from a given medical condition may vary (worsen or improve) over the lifetime of the veteran. The Medical Consultant hopes the applicant continues to receive the support she requires through the DVA or other support agencies, but finds the burden of proof of error or injustice has not been met to warrant the requested remedies. A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 25 October 2013 and 28 October 2013 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 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 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 Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and the AFBCMR Medical Consultant 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 relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2013-02845 in Executive Session on 8 April 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 June 2012, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 11 October 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 24 October 2013. Exhibit E. Letters, AFBCMR, dated 25 October and 28 October 2013 13. 1 2