RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04820 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) be included in his medical disability computation and he be granted a medical retirement. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He has been granted service connection by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which was not considered during this Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). He was told to seek this correction to gain medical retirement. In support of the appeal, the applicant provides his DVA rating and his DD Form 214, Certificate of Discharge or Release from Active Duty. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who served from 21 July 1999 through 25 August 2007. A Medical Evaluation Board referred him to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) for chronic low back pain. On 13 February 2007, the IPEB found him unfit and recommended he be discharged under the provisions of Title 10, U.S.C for chronic low back pain, with disc herniation and recommended he receive severance pay with a disability rating of 10 percent. On 13 March 2007, the Secretary of the Air Force directed the applicant be separated from the service for physical disability. He received a disability discharge and his service was characterized as honorable. He was credited with 7 years, 9 months and 5 days of active duty service. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The applicant sustained a back injury in December 2005 after jumping in a bunker with full gear while evading enemy fire. He reportedly ignored the pain until March 2006 when he experienced a stabbing pain as he came down while playing basketball. The MRI scans revealed the presence of an L5-S1 herniated disc. He received an epidural treatment on 12 May 2005 and reported sustained relief for one month. A second injection was initiated, but the physician claimed the applicant was somewhat hostile and disrespectful causing them to opt out of the treatment. He was ultimately found unfit by an IPEB and discharged with severance and 10 percent disability rating. The applicant agreed with the finding and recommendation of the IPEB. The Board and the applicant are reminded that Chapter 61, Title 10 U.S.C states, Military Departments, can by law only offer compensation for illnesses, injuries or diseased that caused or contributed early termination, and then only to the degree of impairment present at the snap shot in time of final military disposition. The evidence supports the principal impediment to the applicant’s functioning at the time of referral for MEB was his recurring thoracolumbar pain, and not an underlying PTSD. The Department of Defense Instruction 1332.38, states if the evidence establishes that the service member adequately performed his or her duties until the time the service member was referred for physical evaluation, the member may be considered fit for duty even though medical evidence indicates questionable physic ability to continue to perform. It is clear the applicant’s thoracolumbar pain interfered with his military service. However, under another paragraph, it becomes clear that the mere presence of a medical condition determined service connected, in this case PTSD, is not sufficient for, nor automatically warrants an unfit finding by the military, it is established that there is a cause and effect relationship between the two factors. The Medical Consultant was unable to identify a cause and effect between the de novo diagnosis of PTSD, whether acute or delayed, and the applicant’s ability to perform his duties. The DVA operates under Title 38 and is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition with nexus to military service, without regard to its demonstrated or proven impact upon a service member’s retainability, fitness to serve, or narrative reason for release from military service. This is the reason individuals can be found fit for release from military service for one reason and yet receive compensation ratings from the DVA for service-connected, but not military unfitting at the time of release from military service. The Medical Consultant noted the Air Force issued a 10 percent rating for the applicant’s back ailment, whereas the DVA granted him a 20 percent rating. This is likely based upon a change in service versus post-service thoracolumbar range of motion findings. However, either rating would result in discharge with severance pay. The record provided does not meet the burden of proof of an error or injustice that warrants the desired change of record. The BCMR Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant requests the Board remember there is a real person behind this file, with real problems. He cannot begin to explain what he’s been through and how PTSD has affected his life. While in the Air Force, he could not be honest with his superiors, especially handling weapons every day. PTSD completely devastated his life. He is a single dad and needs the money. It’s only $350.00, but he needs the help and he needs insurance for his children. The PTSD is well documented in his medical records and shows its service connected. He was discharged so quickly, he did not have time to see a mental health professional. He was treated unfairly and rushed out. PTSD is a serious issue and he has taken classes to help deal with that along with anxiety and depression. He now needs the Air Force as well as the DVA; it’s all he has. The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ 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 carefully considered the available evidence of record; however, we found no indication the actions taken to affect the applicant’s discharge were improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing instructions. Therefore we agree with the opinion 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. We are sympathetic to the applicant’s situation; however, 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 that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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 BCMR Docket Number BC-2011-04820 in Executive Session on 2 October 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dtd 14 Jul 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dtd 2 Sep 12. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dtd 4 Sep 12. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant’s Response, dtd 11 Sep 12. Panel Chair