RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03845 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His service-connected Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) caused and played a major part in his discharge. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States; DD Form 214, Record of Separation from Active Duty; DD Form 214/215, Action Order; a mental health evaluation dated 12 Sep 13, and his Department of Veteran’s Affairs (DVA) Rating Decision dated 21 Jun 14. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 14 Jun 71, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 16 Dec 74, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend his discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Personal Abuse of Drugs; Resignation or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service; and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program, for Apathy, Defective Attitudes, or Inability to Expend Effort Constructively. The specific reasons for the recommended action were the applicant’s lack of self- discipline and repeated violations of military regulations to wit: nine Letters of Counseling (lateness, use of profanity, negative attitude, and failure to salute), two Article 15s, Uniform Code of Military Justice (failure to go and failure to obey a lawful order) nine statements regarding misconduct from 12 Sep 74 to 16 Oct 74, and one Letter of Reprimand (belligerence). Before recommending discharge the commander noted that previous rehabilitation efforts were ineffective. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge, consulted with legal counsel, waived his right to submit a statement on his own behalf and declined the offer of rehabilitation. On 20 Dec 74, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s discharge. On 27 Dec 74, the applicant was discharged for Apathy and Defective Attitudes with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions) in the grade of airman first class. He served 3 years, 6 months and 12 days of total active service. On 9 Oct 14, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). As of this date, no response has been received by this office AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Clinical Mental Health Advisor recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of injustice or inequity in the records reviewed. The applicant’s in-service medical treatment and personnel records contain no evidence he suffered any symptom of PTSD prior to his discharge from active duty. While manifestations of recalcitrance and/or irritability may be interpreted as a supportive finding in diagnosing PTSD, irritability, misconduct, and alcohol abuse, do not, per se, represent diagnostic conditions sufficient to claim PTSD. In this case the Air Force had no documented cause to suspect the applicant suffered any formal mental health disorder and the treatment and disposition of the applicant, at the time of his separation, were appropriate and in keeping with the then- current medical guidance and regulatory doctrine. Claims based on a change between the service and post-service diagnosis are expected to continue to occur particularly when a post-service diagnosis results in compensation by the DVA; sometimes soon and sometimes many years after separation. In the applicant’s case, no evidence is presented that proves or suggests the diagnosis issued to him at the time of his military service was a diagnostic error. The military Disability Evaluation System (DES) established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law, under Title 10 United States Code (USC), only offers compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries which specifically rendered a member unfit for continued active service and were the cause for career termination; and then only for the degree of impairment present at the time of separation and not based on future occurrences. The clinical evaluators at the time of the applicant’s service found no evidence of a disqualifying mental health disorder that warranted a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and processing via a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), as a compensable disability under AFR 35-4, forerunner of today’s AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement and Separation. Operating under a different set of laws (Title 38, USC), with a different purpose, the DVA is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition determined service incurred, without regard to (and independent of) its demonstrated or proven impact upon a service member’s retainability, fitness to serve, narrative reason for separation, or length of time passed since discharge. This is the reason why an individual can be found fit for release from military service for one reason and yet sometime thereafter receive a compensation rating from the DVA for one or more service-connected, but not militarily unfitting conditions. The DVA is empowered to conduct periodic re- evaluations for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating awards (increase or decrease) as the level of impairment from a given service-connected medical condition may vary (improve or worsen, affecting future employability) over the lifetime of the veteran. From a mental health perspective, the applicant was appropriately diagnosed and dispositioned in accordance with the results of a competent examination, and regulatory guidance in place at the time. A complete copy of the BCMR Mental Health Advisor evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states he does not disagree with the recommendation of the BCMR Mental Health Advisor and provides a statement discussing the events which led to his discharge. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely filed. 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 opinion and recommendation of the BCMR Clinical Mental Health Advisor and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, in the absence of any evidence related to the applicant’s post-service activities, there is no way for us to determine if the applicant’s accomplishments since leaving the service warrant such an action. 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-2014-03845 in Executive Session on 18 Feb 16, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Sep 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Oct 14, w/atch. Exhibit D. Memorandum, BCMR Clinical Mental Health Advisor, dated 30 Dec 15. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jan 16. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, 24 Jan 16.