RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2020-02432

XXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: XXXXXXXXXX
	
	HEARING REQUESTED: YES

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

Her record be corrected to show that she was not discharged based on incompetency. 

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

She was separated from service based on an erroneous finding of incompetence.  At the time, she was in the custody of the sheriff’s department.  If they would have transported her to the hearing and afforded her due process rights, such as the right to be heard, she would not have been found incompetent.  Subsequently, a psychologist did an evaluation and determined that she was competent and on 1 Oct 18, her competency was restored.

In support of her request, the applicant provides a court order filed 5 Jan 18, indicating the applicant was incompetent.  She also provides an evaluation from a licensed psychologist dated 15 Aug 18, stating in part that it was her opinion the applicant possessed sufficient cognitive and functional  capacity to manage her affairs and to make and communicate important decisions regarding her person, family, and property.  Additionally, the applicant provides affidavits and another court order filed 1 Oct 18, indicating the applicant was competent.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a permanently disabled retired Air National Guard technical sergeant (E-6).

AF IMT 618, Medical Board Report, dated 19 Apr 18. indicates the applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder, Unspecified and Schizotypal Disorder that Existed Prior to Service (EPTS) and was referred to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB).

On 26 Apr 18, the IPEB found the applicant unfit for service due to Schizophrenia EPTS and recommended temporary retirement with a disability rating of 100% in accordance with the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) guidelines.  The IPEB concluded the condition was EPTS, but aggravated by military service.   

AF Form 1180, Action on Physical Evaluation Board Findings and Recommended Disposition, dated 30 Apr 18, indicates the applicant’s legal guardian disagreed with the findings and recommended disposition of the IPEB and requested a formal hearing of the case.  

On 4 May 18 the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) found the applicant unfit for service due to Schizophrenia that EPTS with Permanent Service Aggravation and recommended permanent disability retirement with a 100% disability rating.  

AF Form 1180, dated 7 May 18, indicates the applicant’s legal guardian agreed with the findings and recommended disposition of the FPEB.

Special Order ACD-02687 dated 17 May 18, indicates the applicant was permanently disability retired effective 28 Jun 18, in the grade of technical sergeant with a disability rating of 100%.  She was credited with 6 years, 4 months and 26 days active service for retirement.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DPFDD recommends denying the application.  The applicant seems to contend that if she was not found incompetent by the state she would have not been processed through the DES, however, this assumption is false.  Per the AF Form 356 “Her impairment for military service is described as marked and social industrial impairment is total. [The applicant] is duty restricted from deployment and carrying weapons; she was deemed not suitable for access to classified material and her Special Compartmentalized Clearance was rescinded.  Her commander reported she is unable to perform her primary duties and does not recommend retention.”  Due to these factors a PEB would have been required regardless of the competency determination.  There is no evidence that an error or injustice occurred at the time of DES processing.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

The AFBCMR Psychological Advisor recommends denying the application.  The applicant is contending her discharge was based on the declaration of her being incompetent, but this assertion is not accurate.  A state of competency or incompetency has no bearing on her discharge as she was discharged from service because she had an unfitting mental health condition of Schizophrenia.  The ANG did initiate the petition to the court for incompetence due to her erratic and unsafe behaviors derived from her psychosis but was not the basis of her discharge.  There is sufficient evidence to support her diagnosis of Schizophrenia given in service was valid. Thus, there is no evidence of any errors with her discharge from service.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinions to counsel on 16 Dec 20 for comment (Exhibit E), but has received no response.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was timely filed.
2.  The applicant exhausted all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DPFDD and the AFBCMR Psychological Advisor and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

4.  The applicant has not shown a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

CERTIFICATION

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2020-02432 in Executive Session on 17 Jan 21:

, Panel Chair 
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 17 Feb 20.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DPFDD, dated 3 Dec 20.
Exhibit D:	Advisory opinion, AFBCMR Psychological Advisor, dated 9 Dec 20.
Exhibit D:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 15 Dec 20.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.