RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05610 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation of adjustment disorder and its corresponding separation code of “JFY,” be changed to a medical separation. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her separation code is incorrect and her reason for separation is abbreviated and ambiguous, which is preventing her from receiving her full Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits. In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement; copies of her discharge correspondence; DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued in conjunction with her 7 May 08 discharge, and a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), dated 4 Jun 10. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 29 Aug 06, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic (E-1/AB). On 7 May 08, the applicant was honorably discharged, with a reason for separation of adjustment disorder. She was credited with one year, eight months and nine days of active duty service. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, stating, in part, that based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the narrative reason for separation and the separation code was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. DPSOR found no evidence of an error or injustice in the processing of the applicant's discharge. The applicant was initially seen at the Base Mental Health Clinic on 09 Jan 08 for an assessment regarding an Adjustment Disorder, with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood. She voluntarily participated in therapy and received support from Family Advocacy. The applicant has Axis I disorders that were significantly impeding her ability to function in the military environment. In accordance with AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, para 5.11.9.1 and the medical professional opinion, the applicant's adjustment disorder was so severe that her ability to function effectively in the military environment was significantly impaired. The applicant requested administrative separation under AFI 36- 3208, Para 5.11.9.1. It was recommended that she continue receiving services from Mental Health and Family Advocacy until her separation. The medical evaluation indicates the applicant was not suitable for retention in the Air Force and should have been separated. DPSOR noted the applicant’s apparent success and that she was coping well in her civilian capacity; however, her success in her civilian life does not change the basis for which she was discharged from the Air Force. The military environment is unique and stressors encountered in such an environment may not appear or surface when removed from the military environment. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: She states that her request for correction of her DD Form 214 and change of her administrative discharge to a medical discharge is necessary due to her not receiving benefits for which she is entitled as a disabled veteran. Her disabilities, both of which were incurred while in the military (Exercise induced Asthma and Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Depressed Mood), were proven to be service connected. So, based upon that fact, she is eligible for 100 percent of her veteran's benefits. Also, she is a full-time student and she is not receiving her full GI Bill entitlement as a result of improper wording on her DD Form 214. The separation code which should appear does not and the narrative reason information is abbreviated and should include her full diagnoses. The advisory opinion recommends denial as a result of inappropriate behavior on her part; however, this could not be further from the truth as she received neither verbal nor written reprimands from any of her superiors during her time served on active duty. The letter also states that she was given multiple opportunities to correct her behavior which is also incorrect. She was experiencing such extenuating circumstances that she feared that she would eventually adversely affect the mission. Furthermore, the initial request for separation was made by her based on the fact that she had begun suffering from extreme sleep deprivation, extreme exhaustion and anxiety, which led her to seek medical treatment on her own. She is not guilty of any or exhibited any inappropriate behavior and was never counseled by any of her superiors and thus, could not have been given an opportunity to correct her behavior that she was not made aware was an issue. Despite her personal challenges, she still managed to arrive at work on time in the proper uniform, did her job well, and maintained military bearing at all times until her last day as a member of the Air Force. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The BCMR Medical Consultant notes the applicant served in the active duty Air Force for about 20 months. From the documentation supplied, the Medical Consultant can determine that the applicant was seen and treated at the Base Mental Health Clinic and diagnosed with Axis I Disorders (Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Depressed Mood). In her provider’s professional medical opinion, the applicant's adjustment disorder was so severe that her ability to function effectively in the military environment was significantly impaired. This medical evaluation indicated that the applicant was not suitable for retention in the Air Force and she was administratively separated. Based on the documentation provided, the narrative reason for separation and separation code were consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and the discharge authority. In addressing the applicant's implicit desire for a medical separation, the Military Disability Evaluation System (MDES), established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law, under Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), 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 to the degree of impairment present at the time of separation and not based on future occurrences. Based upon the supplied service medical evidence, the Medical Consultant found no medical condition that established, [or should have], a cause and effect relationship with the termination of the applicant's service or as an alternative reason for her release from military service. Although the applicant was evaluated and treated for episodic illnesses during her military service, none were shown to have interfered with her military service to the extent or duration that warranted placement on Medical Hold for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and processing through the MDES. On the other hand, operating under a different set of laws (Title 38, U.S. C.), with a different purpose, the DVA is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition determined service incurred, without regard to [and independent of] its demonstrated or proven impact upon a service member's retainability, fitness to serve, narrative reason for separation, or the intervening or transpired period since the date of separation. With this in mind, Title 38, U.S.C., which governs the DVA compensation system, was written to allow awarding compensation ratings for conditions that were not unfitting for military service. This is the reason why an individual can be found fit for release from military service and yet sometime thereafter receive a compensation rating from the DVA for service-connected, but militarily non-unfitting conditions. The DVA is also empowered to conduct periodic re- evaluations for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating awards (increase or decrease) as the level of impairment from a given service connected medical condition may vary (improve or worsen, affecting future employability) over the lifetime of the veteran. The DVA is the agency chartered by Congress to provide assistance to all eligible veterans. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 Sep 13 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit G). ________________________________________________________________ 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 error or injustice. The applicant’s case has undergone an exhaustive review by the Air Force Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) and the BCMR Medical Consultant and we do not find the evidence provided sufficient to overcome their assessment of the case. As such, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force OPR and the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In addition, we note the applicant refutes statements in the OPR’s evaluation that states that she was counseled for inappropriate behavior and given opportunities to correct her behavior; however, these statements were not a factor in coming to our decision. Therefore, in view of the above 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-2012-05610 in Executive Session on 7 Nov 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Nov 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 4 Mar 13. Exhibit D. Letter, Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Mar 13. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Apr 13, w/atchs. Exhibit F. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 24 Mar 13. Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 10 Sep 13. Panel Chair 2