RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01695 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 2 November 2006 ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be changed to show disability retirement for post- traumatic stress disorder. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was forced to take an AFM 35-4 discharge, which ended his career. In support of his application, applicant submits a personal statement. Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant served on active duty in the Army from 29 December 1958 to 27 October 1965 as a telephone installer/repairman. After a two-year break in service, he entered the Air Force on 19 October 1967 and served as an aircraft mechanic. Service medical records reflect marital problems, depressed mood and suicidal ideation, diagnosed as depressive reaction, prompting hospitalization on two occasions. At the time of the second hospitalization, he underwent a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) to determine medical fitness for continued military duty. The psychiatric evaluation concluded the applicant’s condition impaired him for continued military service. On 31 August 1970, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) concluded his condition was unfitting, with a compensable rating of 10 percent, and recommended disability discharge with severance pay. On 4 September 1970, the applicant signed Air Force Form 1180 and concurred with the findings and recommendation of the PEB. On 23 September 1970, he was discharged with severance pay (10 percent) with the diagnosis of depressive reaction. He served 9 years, 9 months and 4 days of active service. The Department of Veterans Affairs records show that the applicant was employed with AT&T electronics for 15 years following separation and his service connected mental condition was rated at zero percent. In 2003, he was diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder that the examiner opined the applicant suffered from while on active duty. _______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted. The applicant manifested symptoms diagnosed as depressive reaction that resulted in a finding of unfit for continued military service and disability separation. At the time in 1970, the diagnostic category post traumatic stress disorder did not exist and was not listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders II (DSM II), published in 1968. It was not until 1980, ten years later with the publication of the DSM III that the diagnostic category of post traumatic stress disorder was formalized as a standard diagnosis in psychiatric practice. While in retrospect with today’s knowledge, a diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder may plausibly be applied to the applicant’s symptoms by using editions of the DSM published decades later; there is no evidence that he was improperly diagnosed at the time with the facts as known and the then current standards of practice. Regardless, a finding of unfit due to, mental disorders does not require a precise diagnosis. An adjudication of a disability rating for mental disorder under the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities is not based on a diagnosis, but rather on assessments of impairment for civilian employment. The fact the diagnosis may change over time following separation is not evidence of an error of a finding of unfit or of the rating assigned. Evidence of record indicates the applicant was properly evaluated and rated and that he received full consideration in the Air Force Disability Evaluation System under applicable directions. Action and disposition in this case are proper and reflect compliance with Air Force directives which implement the law. BCMR Medical Consultant's complete 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 13 June 2006 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response. _______________________________________________________________ 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 an injustice warranting a change in the applicant’s records to show a disability retirement for post traumatic stress disorder. The Board took note that the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) determined the member’ diagnosed depressive reaction impaired him for continued military service and the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) concluded his condition was unfitting, with a compensable rating of 10 percent, and recommended disability discharge with severance pay. While it is plausible that a diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder may be applied to the applicant’s symptoms developing during 1970 by using the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorder, there is no evidence that the applicant was improperly diagnosed at the time with the facts then known and the contemporary standards of practice. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice, and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of a material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 Docket Number BC- BC-2005-01695 in Executive Session on 11 July 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 May 2005, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 12 Jun 06. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Jun 06. Chair