RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00281 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge with severance pay be changed to a medical retirement. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was discharged from the Air Force with a 10 percent service connected disability and should have been medically retired with a disability rating of 30 percent or more. He experienced a loss of concentration and symptoms of narcolepsy; however, due to the absence of seizures and mynoclonus [sic] medical professionals did not explore this condition; therefore narcolepsy was not included on his AF Form 356, Findings and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board. Instead he was diagnosed with depression and anxiety and because they were controlled with medication his conditions were determined to be 10 percent disabling and he was found unfit for continued service. The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) determined that the initial onset of his diagnosed narcolepsy likely began during his service in the Air Force. The applicant provides no rationale as to why his failure to timely file should be waived in the interest of justice. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his Air Traffic Control Specialist (ATCS) Certificate Withdrawal memorandum and related documentation, AF Form 356, AF Form 100, Request and Authorization for Separation; electronic communiqués, memorandums and various other documents related to his request. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: In a memorandum dated 7 October 2009, the Chief, Aerospace Medicine informed the applicant’s commander, that the applicant was found medically disqualified for ATC duties. Since his medical condition was not disqualifying for worldwide duty or deployment status, he recommended the applicant be trained into another career field. In a memorandum dated 7 October 2009, the applicant was informed that he was medically “Disqualified for ATC” effective 8 September 2009. A Medical Evaluation Board convened on 16 April 2010, and recommended the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) consider the following conditions incurred while the applicant was entitled to basic pay; anxiety disorder, Not Otherwise Specified (NOS) and depressive disorder, NOS. According to an AF Form 356 dated 12 July 2010, the IPEB found the applicant unfit based on his diagnoses of anxiety disorder, NOS and depressive disorder, NOS. The IPEB recommended he be discharged with a 10 percent disability rating and severance pay. According to an AF Form 1180, Action on Informal Physical Evaluation Board Findings and Recommended Disposition, on 19 July 2010, the applicant agreed with the findings of the IPEB and waived his right to a formal PEB hearing. According to AFPC/DPSDD memorandum dated 23 July 2010, the Secretary of the Air Force directed the applicant be separated from active service for physical disability under the provisions of Title 10 United States Code (USC) § 1203, with severance pay. According to his DD Form 214 issued in conjunction with his 23 August 2010 separation, the applicant was honorably discharged with a narrative reason for separation of “Disability, Severance Pay.” He had 11 years, 10 months and 10 days of active duty. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFD recommends denial. The preponderance of evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the disability process. The IPEB recommended the applicant be discharged with severance pay with a disability rating of 10 percent for diagnoses of anxiety disorder and depressive disorder, NOS. The IPEB listed the applicant’s pervasive developmental disorder, Asperger's and personality disorder as conditions that are not separately unfitting and not compensable or ratable. On 19 July 2010, the applicant concurred with the IPEB’s recommendation and requested an earlier separation date of 23 August 2010. Documents submitted by the applicant indicate that in June 2013 the DVA changed his application request for a new service connected disability from seizure disorder to narcolepsy. However, the applicant did not meet a PEB for narcolepsy or seizure disorder. As background, the Department of Defense and DVA disability evaluation systems operate under separate laws. Under Title 10, USC, PEBs must determine if a member's condition renders them unfit for continued military service relating to their office, grade, rank or rating. The fact that a person may have a medical condition does not mean that the condition is necessarily unfitting for continued military service. To be unfitting, the condition must be such that it alone precludes the member from fulfilling his military duties. If the board renders a finding of unfit, the law provides appropriate compensation due to the premature termination of the member’s career. Further, it must be noted the Air Force disability boards must rate disabilities based on the member's condition at the time of evaluation; in essence a snapshot of their condition at that time. It is the charge of the DVA to pick up where the Air Force 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. The complete DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 28 February 2014, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D). 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. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 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 issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 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 this application in Executive Session on 20 November 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR BC-2014- 00281 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, 16 January 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPFD Advisory, dated 13 February 2014 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 February 2014.