RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00334 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His discharge be changed to a medical separation. 2. His grade be adjusted and he be given the highest rank he could have achieved if he had been allowed to stay until retirement. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His discharge was unjust. Clemency is warranted because he and his wife should not have to continue to suffer the adverse consequences of the discharge. Under current standards, he would not have received this type of treatment. He faced racial discrimination which impaired his ability to advance in rank. His use of the prescribed drug, Zoloft, by the Air Force doctor also impaired him. His medical, physical, and psychiatric problems also hurt him. He tried to serve, but was not given the chance, due to prejudices. His commander abused his authority when he decided to discharge him, when he asked to be cross trained. He was being considered for a medical discharge and was unfairly denied by his commander. He tried to apply for a compassionate (hardship) reassignment but was unfairly denied or told to forget it. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: Prior to the events under review, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force, on 12 Dec 75, for a period of six years. According to a DD Form 214, dated 5 Jul 84, on 12 Dec 81, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 15 Jun 84, the squadron commander notified the applicant of administrative discharge action for conditions that interfere with military service. The specific reasons for the proposed action noted during her mental health evaluation, was that on 10 May 84, the applicant was diagnosed with Personality Disorder. On 15 Jun 84, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and was advised of his right to consult with legal counsel and submit statements in his own behalf. On 19 Jun 84, the applicant submitted a conditional waiver of an administrative discharge board contingent upon receiving an Honorable service characterization of discharge. On 22 Jun 84, the base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support the basis for separation. On 25 Jun 84, the base discharge authority accepted the conditional waiver and directed the applicant be discharged with an Honorable discharge without Probation and Rehabilitation (P&R). On 5 Jul 84, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, with a reason for separation of conditions that interfere with military service-not a disability-personality disorder, and a Reenlistment (RE) code of 2C. He was credited with 2 years, 6 months, and 24 days of active duty service during the period. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR-SEP recommends denial indicating the applicant has not filed a timely petition. It has been almost 31 years since the applicant was discharged from the Air Force and there is no valid reason mentioned as to why he did not submit a petition within three years of discharge. Additionally, based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the SPD code, the narrative reason for separation and character of service was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. DPSOR-SEP found no evidence of an error or injustice in the processing of the applicant’s discharge. The basis for the recommendation was that the commander received a mental health evaluation dated 10 May 84 from the Chief, Psychological Services, diagnosing the applicant with a mental disorder as contained in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Specifically, he was diagnosed with: Axis I – Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Mood and Conduct; Axis II – Antisocial Personality Disorder (DSM III 301.70); Axis III – no known medical complications. It was determined by his unit that discharge was in the best interest of the United States Air Force. A complete copy of the DPSOR-SEP evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial on the applicant’s request to correct his record to show that he was discharged in a rank higher than SrA (E-4) as he was never selected for promotion to any other rank. DPSOE notes the applicant entered active duty 12 Dec 75 as an Airman Basic (E-1) for a period of six years. He was promoted to the rank of Airman (E-2) effective 12 Jun 76, Airman First Class (E-3) on 12 Dec 76, and Senior Airman (E-4) on 1 Oct 77. The applicant received his NCO status to Sgt (E-4) effective 1 Oct 78; however, it was vacated on 3 Apr 84. He was honorably discharged in the rank of SrA (E-4) on 5 Jul 84 after serving 8 years, 6 months, and 24 days on active duty. A complete copy of the DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. The AFBCMR Psychiatry Consultant found insufficient evidence to warrant the desired change of the record, but noted the Board may consider a change of a reason for discharge from a Personality Disorder to an Adjustment Disorder; with the option for Secretarial Authority. The Psychiatric Consultant notes the applicant has not filed a timely petition. It has been more than 30 years since the applicant was discharged from the Air Force and there is no valid reason mentioned as to why he did not submit a petition within three years of discharge. Nevertheless, in the interest of justice this consultant has carefully reviewed all the available medical documentation and the military records. It is also interesting to note the applicant has made two contradicting claims. He opines that he was disabled enough to warrant a medical discharge and at the same time argues that his career was cut short by discrimination and unfair treatment. Given the age of the file and the inadequate records available for review, it is practically impossible at this time to reconstruct the applicant’s history of his military career and detailed progression of his medical problems. It appears that he had some disciplinary actions during his first enlistment and both incidences were due to some minor violations. The applicant’s performance during his eight year Air Force career was overall satisfactory with some fluctuations from year to year from an exceptional service to needing improvement. It is unclear what was behind such variations, but it is very possible the applicant’s gambling addiction and financial/marital problems could be responsible for it. The applicant eventually got referred to the Mental Health clinic for evaluation and treatment. His therapist felt that the applicant should be permanently decertified from Personnel Reliability Program (PRP), but opined the applicant remained World-wide Qualified (WWQ). Since PRP decertification likely resulted in the applicant’s inability to perform his job; but according to the Physical Profile Report did not warrant referral for the Medical Board for evaluation and therefore did not render him unfit for duty. The record is silent if that option was ever offered to him. Following psychological testing and administration of MMPI, he was administratively separated for Antisocial Personality Disorder. The certificate of the psychiatric evaluation provided to the command listed diagnosis of an Adjustment Disorder, in addition to the diagnosis of a Personality Disorder. Since applicant’s mental health records are limited, this psychiatric consultant is not able to add any additional analysis of the applicant’s psychiatric condition at the time near discharge and does not find any evidence to support applicant’s contentions for the medical retirement. Readdressing the applicant’s implicit desire for a medical retirement, the military Disability Evaluation System (DES), established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law, under Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), only offer 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 “snapshot” time of separation and not based on post-service progression of disease or injury. On the review of the applicant’s file, there is no evidence that he had suffered from an unfitting condition. Finally, for awareness, the Department of Veterans Affairs is authorized, under Title 38 United States Code, to offer compensation for any medical condition with a nexus with military service, without regard its proven impact upon a former Service member’s fitness to serve, the narrative reason for release from Service, or the duration of time passed since separation. 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 eligible for military disability processing at the time of 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. This Psychiatric Consultant recognizes the sacrifices the applicant has made for this country and appreciates his service, but opines the applicant has not met the burden of proof of error or injustice that warrants the desired change of the record. A complete copy of the Psychiatry Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 28 Apr 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD: Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. After a careful review of the applicant's contentions, documentation submitted in support of the request, and the available evidence of record, we are not convinced the applicant has provided sufficient evidence for us to conclude that he is the victim of an error or injustice. We also note the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603. Therefore, because we do not find it would be in the interest of justice to recommend granting relief, and the applicant has offered no plausible reason for the delay in filing the application, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file the application. Accordingly, we find the application untimely. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness. It is the decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00334 in Executive Session on 9 Jun 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00334 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Jan 15, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR-SEP, dated 31 Mar 15. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 10 Jun 15. Exhibit E. Memorandum, AFBCMR Psychiatric Consultant, dated 25 Apr 16. Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Apr 16.