RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1997-03327 COUNSEL: AMERICAN LEGION HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her honorable discharge be changed to a disability discharge. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She should have been discharged for physical disability instead of denied reenlistment. She was being treated while on active duty by the mental health section and did not receive and appropriate mental and physical exam prior to her involuntary separation. By amendment, Counsel contends the applicant was involuntarily separated without consideration for her medical issues that were identified by military doctors. She was unlawfully ordered to complete a mental health questionnaire and was not advised of her rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Since she was ordered to complete the evaluation based on the advice of the medical provider to her commander one would think the basis for the evaluation was a disability; therefore, the results of the evaluation should have been considered for an MEB and said consideration may have resulted in a disability retirement for the applicant. In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of documents from her military personnel and medical records, a statement from her mother, and a psychological summary. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 12 Feb 86, the applicant commenced her enlistment in the Regular Air Force. On 1 Jun 92, the applicant was evaluated by mental health and diagnosed with occupational problems and a personality disorder. It was determined the applicant was mentally responsible for her behavior and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in any administrative proceedings. On 26 Jun 92, the applicant underwent a follow-up mental health examination. The mental health provider confirmed the findings of occupational problems and personality disorder. The mental health provider indicated the applicant’s medical condition interfered with her adjustment and caused conflict in the military environment. He further stated the applicant was unsuited for continued military service and recommended she be administratively separated. On 15 Oct 93, the applicant’s commander nonselected her for reenlistment for failing to maintain the high standards of bearing, behavior, and duty performance. The commander noted the applicant received a Letter of Admonishment (LOA), two Letters of Reprimand (LOR), three Letters of Counseling (LOC), nine Memorandums of Record, an Unfavorable Information File (UIF), and two Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) with an overall rating of two during the enlistment. On 20 Oct 93, the applicant appealed the nonselection for reenlistment. On 18 Feb 94, the applicant’s appeal was denied. On 3 Mar 94, the applicant was notified that due to her nonselection for reenlistment she would be separated under the Fiscal Year (FY) 95 Involuntary DOS Rollback Program. The applicant acknowledged the notification and requested a separation date of 31 Oct 94. On 31 Oct 94, the applicant was honorably released from active duty and credited with 8 years, 8 months, and 19 days of total active service. According to documents provided by the applicant, she has sought medical care through the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and has been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The DVA medical provider indicates the applicant’s diagnosis of personality disorder by the Air Force was wrong and his diagnosis of PTSD is correct. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. A review of the applicant’s available personnel records reflect that for most of her service time her duty performance was far below acceptable standards and was the basis for her nonselection for reenlistment. Furthermore, there was no indication of a mental condition at the time of her separation that warranted consideration through the disability evaluation system (DES). A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPD concurs with the recommendation by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and recommends denial indicating there was no evidence submitted showing the applicant was unfit due to a physical disability at the time of her involuntary discharge. Although the applicant was treated for various medical conditions throughout her military service, none appeared to have been serious enough to warrant consideration through the DES. The applicant was not referred or considered by the DES under the provisions of AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, and Separation. The role of the military DES is to maintain a fit and vital force by separating service members who are unable to perform the duties of their office, rank, and grade. Service members who are separated or retired by reasons of physical disability may be eligible for certain disability compensation. The Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) makes the decision as to whether a member is to be processed through the DES, or when the member is determined medically disqualified for continued military service. The service member’s medical treatment facility (MTF) makes the decision of conducting an MEB. Additionally, on 31 Oct 94, the applicant was scheduled for a separation medical examination; however, the Physical Examination Unit at Edwards AFB noted the applicant’s records were reviewed in accordance with AFR 160-43, Medical Examination Standards, and it was determined that a separation physical examination was not required. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 15 Feb 99, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). In response, the applicant’s counsel provided additional medical documentation for review by the Board (Exhibit F). ________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant notes a review of the additional medical information reinforces his previous recommendation. The information provided details the testing and clinical determination of the applicant’s personality disorder. The applicant did not exhibit a mental condition that warranted a disability separation. A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit G. AFPC/DPPD concurs with the Medical Consultant’s reevaluation and recommends denying the request for a disability discharge. The preponderance of evidence indicates the applicant’s nonselection for reenlistment and subsequent discharge action was not the result of a medical condition precluding her from performing her military duties, but was the result of her own misconduct. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit H. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the additional Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 8 Oct 99, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit I). On 5 Nov 99, the applicant requested her case be administratively closed as she needed additional time to prepare a response (Exhibit J). On 12 Nov 99, the Board staff notified the applicant that her case was administratively closed in accordance with her request (Exhibit K). By virtue of a DD Form 149, with attachments, the applicant requested that her case be reopened (Exhibit L). ________________________________________________________________ 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 in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. While the applicant argues that she should not have been non-selected for reenlistment, but instead referred to through the disability evaluation system (DES) prior to her separation, we are not convinced that her purported ailments should have resulted in a finding that she was unfit for duty and therefore eligible for disability benefits. While the applicant contends the determination of the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) to award her disability compensation for her post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other ailments supports her argument that she should have been referred through the DES instead of being non-selected for reenlistment, we are not convinced that the DVA’s determination is sufficient to conclude that she should have been found unfit at the time of her separation. In this respect, we note the military service disability system, operating under Title 10, United States Code (USC), can 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 "snap shot" time of separation and not based on future disease progression. Thus, the mere presence of a medical condition during military service does not automatically constitute a basis for a disability separation or retirement. On the other hand, the DVA disability system, operating under Title 38, USC, takes into account physical conditions that, although not unfitting at the time of separation, may later progress in severity and alter the individual’s lifestyle and future employability. With this in mind, Title 38, USC, provides the DVA authority to award compensation ratings for conditions that were not unfitting for military service at the time of separation. As such, it is not uncommon for the DVA to award disability compensation for conditions incurred during a veteran’s service, even though those conditions did not cause the member to be unfit and prematurely cut short his or her service. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ 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-1997-03327 in Executive Session on 18 Jul 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Chair , Member , Member ? The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-1997-03327 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Oct 97, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 2 Dec 98. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 29 Jan 99. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Feb 99. Exhibit F. Letter, Counsel dated 12 Apr 99, w/atchs. Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 19 Jul 99. Exhibit H. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 22 Sep 99. Exhibit I. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Oct 99. Exhibit J. Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Nov 99. Exhibit K. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 Nov 99. Exhibit L. DD Form 149, dated 29 Mar 12, w/atchs. Chair