RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00627 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her medical discharge be changed to a medical retirement. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her disability did not exist prior to her entering military service as she never received psychiatric treatment prior to her military service. She has been deemed unemployable by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 19 Jul 00, the applicant commenced her enlistment in the Regular Air Force. The applicant was referred to mental health by her treatment manager at Family Advocacy after revealing multiple obsessive type behaviors. The applicant had a substantiated Family Advocacy case (minor physical) for domestic assault for striking her husband. She was diagnosed with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, with poor insight, partner relational problems, Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder, Non-contributory, ineffective coping skills, partner relational, current Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) is 55, and that her condition was in the Line of Duty (LOD) and that it Existed Prior to Service (EPTS). Mental Health referred the applicant to a medical evaluation board (MEB). On 12 Jul 01, the applicant underwent an MEB. The MEB concurred with the recommendations of mental health and referred her case to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). On 31 Jul 01, the IPEB recommended the applicant be discharged under other than Chapter 61, 10 USC (EPTS). On 3 Aug 01, the applicant did not concur with the findings and recommendations of the IPEB and requested evaluation by the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB). On 28 Aug 01, the FPEB concurred with the findings and recommendations of the IPEB. The applicant nonconcurred with the findings and recommendations of the FPEB and requested a review by the Secretary Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC). On 2 Oct 01, SAFPC directed the applicant be discharged Under Other Than Chapter 61, 10 USC (EPTS), not in the line of duty, EPTS without service aggravation. On 19 Nov 01, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge with a narrative reason for separation of “Disability, Existed Prior to Service.” She was credited with one year, four months, and one day of total active service. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFD recommends denial indicating there is no evidence indicating an error or injustice occurred during the disability process. The Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) disability evaluation systems operate under separate laws. Under Title 10, USC, a PEB must determine if a condition renders a member unfit for continued military service. The fact that a person may have a medical condition does not mean that the condition is unfitting for continued military service. To be unfitting, the condition must be such that it alone precludes the individual from fulfilling their military duties. If the board renders a finding of unfit, the law provides appropriate compensation due to the premature termination of their career. Further, it must be noted that the service disability boards must rate disabilities based on the individual's condition at the time of evaluation. It is the charge of the DVA to pick up where the AF must, by law, leave off. Under Title 38, the DVA may rate any service-connected condition based upon future employability or reevaluate based on changes in the severity of a condition. This often results in different ratings by the DoD and DVA. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD 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 24 Feb 13, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. ________________________________________________________________ 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, after a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, we find no errors in the applicant’s discharge processing. We further find the applicant’s medical condition was thoroughly reviewed in accordance with the applicable instructions and policy and appropriately determined to have existed prior to her service (EPTS) and therefore not compensable. As a result, she was administratively separated for her EPTS condition. Furthermore, the Air Force and the DVA are separate federal agencies and operate under different laws and policies. The Air Force is tasked to maintain a fit and vital force and assesses a service member's disability with respect to its impact of the member’s fitness for duty and, if incurred or aggravated in the line of duty, compensates the member based on the degree of impairment that cut-short their military career. In this case, however, because the applicant’s condition was not incurred or aggravated in the LOD, she was not eligible for disability compensation from the military disability evaluation system (DES). The DVA, however, awards ratings for any and all conditions that they determine to be service-connected conditions, irrespective of findings of the military DES, to the degree they interfere with future employability and without consideration of fitness for military duty. When combined these two systems provide a continuum of coverage of our veterans. For these reasons, it is not uncommon for the military department and the DVA to issue different ratings. Therefore, after a careful review of all the facts and circumstances of this case, and 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-2012-00627 in Executive Session on 31 Oct 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Aug 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 4 Feb 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Feb 13. Panel Chair