RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00503 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His characterization of discharge should have been a medical discharge based on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). He deployed to Baghdad in 2006. During this deployment he witnessed a fellow Airman and close personal friend die in the line of duty. Upon return unbeknownst to the applicant, he began to suffer from PTSD. He deployed again to the Middle East in Jan 09 to Camp Bucca, Iraq and when he returned his symptoms of PTSD intensified. When the applicant was released from active duty he was severely suffering from PTSD. He has been in treatment and feels he is now ready to address his characterization of discharge, whereas before his medical condition prevented him from dealing with this appropriately. In support of his request, the applicant has provided eleven character reference letters, five letters of appreciation, and copies of his Air Force Medals. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 18 Jan 05. On 24 Feb 10, the applicant received an Article 15, Nonjudicial Punishment, for violations of Article 128, unlawfully grabbed and pushed a fellow airman and Article 134, wrongfully communicated at threat. He was reduced in grade to airman and reprimanded. On 21 May 08, the applicant received an Article 15, Nonjudicial Punishment, for violating Article 92, failed to refrain from using his government travel card for other than official travel related expenses. He was reduced in grade to airman first class. On 14 Jul 08, the applicant received an Article 15, Nonjudicial Punishment, for violations of Article 92, derelict in the performance of duties in that he willfully failed to refrain from transporting or carrying a privately owned weapon or firearm on base and Article 134, wrongfully and recklessly engaged in conduct: waiving a loaded weapon in the air, conduct likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm to a fellow airmen. He was reduced in grade to airman, restricted to the limits of base for 14 days and given 14 days of extra duty. On 17 Nov 09, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand. Investigation had disclosed that on or about 6 Nov 09, the applicant was involved in an altercation whereas threats and physical contact by the applicant caused undue harm. On 19 Apr 10, the applicant’s commander notified him of his intent to recommend discharge for Misconduct in accordance with AFPD 36-32, Military Retirement and Separations and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airman, Chapter 5, paragraph 5.49. The commander recommended characterizing the discharge as General (Under Honorable Conditions). On 22 Apr 10, the applicant acknowledge his commander’s intent of discharge. He consulted counsel and submitted a statement for his consideration. On 3 May 10, the Base Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the discharge package and found it legally sufficient. On 4 May 10, the discharge authority directed a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge without the opportunity for probation and rehabilitation. On 7 May 10, the applicant was furnished a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, and was credited with 5 years, 3 months, and 20 days of active service. A Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) search of the applicant’s fingerprints revealed a driving under the influence of alcohol charge that was subsequently dismissed on 24 Jan 12. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. According to the applicant’s records he had been counseled and given several opportunities to overcome his deficiencies but with no success. His commander concluded that his blatant disregard for military standards had proven to be a burden to the unit and discharge was warranted. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. BCMR Medical Consultant recommends consideration of an upgrade of discharge characterization to Honorable and change in reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority.” He found no definitive causal or mitigating relationship between the applicant’s acts, misconduct and his co-morbid diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder, Occupational Problems and PTSD; as these appear to have resurfaced after the applicant’s troubles with his girlfriend and in his responses after receiving disciplinary actions; and recollection of is childhood and wartime exposure. Noting a memo where the provider acknowledged that it would take longer than 6 months to treat the applicant and to determine if a Medical Evaluation Board would be required, the Consultant opines this does suggest existence of an impropriety in the management of the applicant’s case; where clearly his misconduct took precedence in the minds of medical and command leadership. Had the applicant been retained to pursue further medical assessment, he may have, at least, been eligible for a “dual- action” review by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council if found unfit for his PTSD. In the context of pending Congressional interest in this type of case, the Board may “liberally” consider the applicant’s previous deployments and the possible impact upon his overall pattern of behavior resulting in the General characterization of his service. A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In response to the evaluations, the applicant submits 10 pages of supplemental documentation in support of his request. These include a copy of the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Disability Letter, dated 25 Jul 14 and five Letters of Recommendation. 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, to include his rebuttal comments, in judging the merits of the case; however, based on the available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority. The applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the characterization of the service was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed. We took into consideration the BCMR Medical Consultant’s recommendation to consider an upgrade of his discharge characterization to Honorable and change the reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority.” However, after a thorough review of the available evidence of record we found no definitive causal or mitigating relationship between the applicant’s acts, misconduct and his co-morbid diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder, Occupational Problems and PTSD. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of AFPC/DPSOR and adopt its 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-2014-00503 in Executive Session on 10 Feb 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00503 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 Jan 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 28 Feb 14. Exhibit D. Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 1 Aug 14. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Aug 14. Exhibit F. Applicant’s Letter, dated 30 Jul 14. Exhibit G. FBI Report, dated 18 Jun 14.