RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02867 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His official records be corrected to reflect that his post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was combat related. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His PTSD derives from missions flown in combat operations. The Air Force Disability Evaluation System (DES) incorrectly assessed his PTSD as non-combat related, as evidenced by the 9 May 08 Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) determination that his PTSD (generalized anxiety disorder with depressive features, and obsessive-compulsive disorder) was service connected and combat related. The applicant’s disabling condition occurred as a direct result of Hazardous Service that is fully documented in his records: 1. His Officer Performance Report (OPR) which closed out 25 Mar 05 states he was deployed an “incredible” 330 of 365 days, flew over 20 missions, and over 100 combat/combat support hours. 2. The service aggravation came from many years of call ups to active duty, as evidenced by his multiple DD Forms 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. For much of his active duty time since 1999, he received hazardous duty pay. 3. He flew an aircraft that had previously experienced mechanical failures and he was forced into an emergency landing due to depressurization of the aircraft. 4. While on active duty he was required to pilot a plane that contained a decapitated body, and other human remains. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides an expanded statement, copies of separation orders, his DVA Rating Decision, his LOD determination, multiple DD Forms 214, his MEB Report, and selected AF personnel documents. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was an Air Force Reserve officer and a pilot, who was relieved from active duty and placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL), effective 28 Nov 09, with a combined compensable disability rating of 50 percent for a non- combat related physical disability. On 6 Mar 12, according to information obtained from AFPC/DPSDD, the applicant was transferred from the TDRL and permanently retired for physical disability with a combined compensable disability rating of 30 percent for his non-combat related PTSD. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSDD recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The DVA awards service connection for claimed disability but does not make a determination as to whether conditions are “combat related.” Therefore, the DVA found the member’s claimed stressors were supported by in- service medical documentation and thus met the DVA qualifications for service connection of the applicant’s condition of PTSD. Any determinations made by the DVA are not made under Title 10 definitions or guidelines and therefore are not applicable to Service determinations. In fact, Department of Defense Instruction 1332.38 explains that a condition may be combat related under the category of hazardous service if, “The disability was incurred during a performance of duties that present a higher degree of danger to Service personnel due to the level of exposure to actual or simulated armed conflict. The fact a member incurred the disability during a period of hazardous service is not sufficient by itself to support a combat-related determination. There must be a definite, documented, causal relationship between the hazardous service and the resulting disability.” As such, the payment of hazardous duty pay during the period in which an injury or illness occurred is not enough to determine a condition to be combat related. Further, the anxiety the applicant suffered over potential aircraft malfunction or incidents indicate the obsessive fears characteristics of OCD, not combat related PTSD. The applicant’s medical documentation details his mental health stressors as relating to disaster relief flights and missions transporting human remains. While traumatic, these circumstances do not qualify as inherent dangers of flight duties. It should be noted that the applicant did not himself suffer any incidents or flight related trauma. The Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) for his case recommended placement on the TDRL due to his Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) which existed prior to service with service aggravation. At the time, they also found that his disability was not combat related. The applicant concurred with the findings. If the applicant did not agree with the IPEB’s recommendation, he could have appeared before the Formal PEB (FPEB) represented by council, and if he disagreed with the FPEB’s recommendation he could have submitted a rebuttal and his case would have been forwarded to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council for their review and finalization. He did not. Finally, the MEB Overall Summary dated 3 Jul 09 (Tab A, Attachment H, Page 8) clearly states, “the patient has a lifelong history of anxiety which began in childhood and through developmental events and exposures significantly worsened in the military environment.” The IPEB commented in its remarks of Nov 09, “PTSD appears to be primarily related to non-duty related compulsions, his home and place of work being destroyed by Hurricane Andrew, and marital discord.” There is no evidence in the record to show particular combat stressors as cause of the member’s PTSD, and his stated stressors do not meet the criteria for combat relation due to performance of duties while engaged in hazardous service. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSDD evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel responds that although the DVA determination is not dispositive, it is evidence of the combat related nature of the PTSD in this case and must be considered along with all other evidence in reaching a decision. Proof of causal connection between diagnosed PTSD and specific events is no longer the law. The applicant’s PTSD was derived from missions during combat operations as previously described (Exhibit D). ________________________________________________________________ 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. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action. DVA determinations are not made under Title 10 definitions or guidelines and therefore are not applicable to service determinations. Under Title 10, there must be a definitive, documented, causal relationship between the hazardous service and the resulting disability. The applicant’s IPEB recommended placement on the TDRL due to his obsessive compulsive disorder which existed prior to service with service aggravation, and that his disability was not combat related. The applicant concurred with this finding, did not ask to appear before the formal PEB, and did not submit a rebuttal. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the OPR and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In view of the above, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable consideration of the applicant's request. 4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2011-02867 in Executive Session on 22 March 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Vice Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-02867 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Jul 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSDD, dated 21 Dec 11. Exhibit D. Letter, Counsel, dated 30 Jan 2012. Panel Chair