RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:			DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2015-05195
		
						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (medical).

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) caused his misconduct, which resulted in his general discharge.  

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 1 Jul 08. 

On 27 Apr 10, the applicant was punished under the provisions of Article 15, Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for assaulting an airman by striking him with a closed fist, and willfully damaging military property of the United States, of a value of about $1,068.21.

On 4 May 10, the applicant was rendered a referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for “Does Not Meet Standards” in Section III, item 2, regarding an incident that occurred on 24 Feb 10 during which he assaulted another airman in the dormitory.  

On 2 Aug 11, while deployed in theater (Afghanistan), the applicant’s vehicle was struck by an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) resulting in loss of consciousness (LOC) for two seconds.  While being transported back to base, his vehicle ran head on into a semi-tractor trailer, and he had a second LOC for two minutes.  

On 7 Feb 13, the applicant was punished under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for physically controlling a vehicle while the alcohol concentration in his blood, as shown by chemical analysis, equaled or exceeded 0.08 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood, which is the limit under South Carolina law, and thereby cause said vehicle to injure himself. 

On 28 Mar 13, the applicant was rendered a referral EPR for “Does Not Meet Standards” in Section III, item 2, for receiving an Article 15 for assaulting an airman while under the influence of alcohol.  

On 4 May 13, was drunk and disorderly, which conduct was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces and of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.  For this misconduct, his suspended punishment of the 7 Feb 13 Article 15 (reduction in the grade of airman and forfeiture of $849 pay per month for two months), was vacated on 20 May 13.  

On 24 May 13, the applicant was evaluated by 20 MDG/TMC, Clinical Psychologist, for follow up to address symptoms of PTSD and alcohol abuse.  The clinical psychologist documented the applicant’s positive progress after participating in the combat stress and addiction recover program.  She stated the applicant’s most recent alcohol related incident, while unfortunate for applicant’s career, was helpful to the applicant in that he has now accepted his alcoholism diagnosis and is committed to maintaining sobriety.

On 7 Jun 13, the 20 MDOS/SGOW reviewed the applicant’s mental health records from visits between on or about 10 Sep 08 and 7 Jun 13.  20 MDS/SGOW stated the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, TBI, and alcohol abuse.  However, the applicant’s mild symptoms of PTSD had not influenced his behavior to the degree that he engaged in behaviors resulting in criminal conduct.  

On 20 Jun 13, the applicant’s commander notified him of his recommendation to discharge him for the minor disciplinary infractions previously mentioned, and that his service be characterized as under honorable conditions (general).  

On 1 Jul 13, the 20 FW/JA reviewed the proposed discharge action case file and found it legally sufficient to support a decision to separate the applicant with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.

On 11 Jul 13, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s under honorable conditions (general) discharge.  He considered probation and rehabilitation and determined it was not warranted in this case.  

On 17 Jul 13, the applicant was furnished an under honorable conditions (general) discharge, and was credited with five years, and seventeen days of active service.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the memorandum prepared by the AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor, which is included at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor finds the evidence sufficient to recommend granting the applicant a medical retirement, indicating there is evidence of an error on the part of the Air Force.  A review of the applicant’s personnel and medical records revealed a motivated and dedicated Airman that on one hand received a Purple Heart for his actions in Afghanistan, and on the other hand he engaged in irresponsible drinking and driving which ultimately almost cost him his life.  He was involuntarily discharged 17 Jul 13, with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, by reason of minor disciplinary infractions.  The Psychiatric Advisor opined that at the time of the applicant’s discharge his PTSD was not so severe that it would have interfered with his ability to do his job, but his Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) resulting from a 2011 improvised explosive device (IED) incident in Afghanistan was.  In 2013, a military Clinical Psychologist recommended the applicant not be placed on a medical hold, and that his substance (alcohol) abuse resulting in his criminal misconduct was not the result of his mild symptoms of PTSD, and that he was not qualified for world-wide duty due to his ongoing alcohol concerns.  This recommendation was based on the Psychologist attributing everything to the applicant’s PTSD instead of considering both his TBI and PTSD separately.  Subsequent Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) testing the following year concluded that his excessive use of alcohol was precipitated by his condition at the time which was his PTSD and his TBI.  

The Psychiatric Advisor opines that the applicant should have had intensive treatment after his second alcohol offense in 2010, which he did not get, and this was an error on the military’s part for not providing this treatment.  She argues the decision to not do an MEB prior to his discharge, was based on false evidence (Psychologist did not take into consideration the applicant’s TBI).  She contends that if a MEB had been done for TBI in 2013, the applicant would have been put on TDRL for up to three years according to DoDI 1332.18, Disability Evaluation System (DES) Manual: Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES).  This guidance states that a disability will be determined stable when the preponderance of medical evidence indicates the severity of the condition will probably not change enough within the next three years to increase the degree of the disability rating percentage.  It is now 2017, and the current DVA medical notes reveal the applicant isolates himself, has minimal contact with family, deals with neighbor problems by calling the police.  He still complains of most of the symptoms of head injury and his PTSD symptoms are worse.  Their final determination of disability according to the DVA VASRD Code in 2014 was 40 percent for TBI 8045.  
 
A complete copy of the AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor 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 25 Aug 17 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting granting the requested relief of a medical retirement.  While we note the recommendation of granting a medical retirement by the AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor, we are not compelled to do so based on insufficient evidence provided and that we noted the applicant was evaluated by two clinical psychologists prior to separation where it was determined that his mild symptoms of PTSD, which had shown some improvement, had not influenced his behavior to the degree he engaged in negative conduct.  Furthermore, his duties were not limited because of the applicant’s difficulty managing his PTSD and/or TBI symptoms, but due to his alcohol-related misconduct.  Therefore, the Board determined the applicant would have been fit for duty had it not been for the misconduct.  

4.  Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error warranting upgrade of his under honorable conditions (general) discharge.  Specifically, we note the comments of AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor indicating that the applicant should have had intensive treatment after his 2nd alcohol related offense in 2010, which he did not.  She opined there was an error in that the military did not provide the treatment for the applicant after his second alcohol offense.  At the time of his discharge, his PTSD was not so severe that it would have interfered with his ability to do his job, but his TBI was.  The Deployment Availability Working Group (DAWG) determined there were no mental conditions unfitting that could be used to justify the applicant’s behavior that was unacceptable.  The DAWG based this determination on a Psychologist’s report that attributed everything to the applicant’s PTSD instead of considering both his TBI and PTSD separately.  Consequently, the applicant was administratively discharged.  While there is no assessment of his depression to determine severity, there is documentation indicating the applicant remains border-line functional due to his TBI.

5.  In accordance with the 3 Sep 14 SECDEF memorandum on Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for correction of Military/Nava Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and the 25 Aug 17 Under Secretary of Defense memorandum on Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records considering Requests by Veterans for Modification of their Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual Harassment; the Board determined that the applicant’s PTSD-related condition TBI, existed at the time of discharge, and was a mitigating factor in the “Misconduct Minor Disciplinary Infractions” that caused his under honorable conditions (General) Character of Service discharge.  Therefore, we believe that corrective action is warranted; however, limited to upgrading his discharge, and recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.  

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 17 July 2013, he was discharged with an “Honorable” characterization of service, a narrative reason for separation of “Secretarial Authority,” and a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of “JFF.”

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-05195 in Executive Session on 26 Sep 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

All members voted to correct the records as recommended.  The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-05195 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Dec 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor, signed 
  24 Aug 17.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Aug 17.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.