RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1997-03327

		COUNSEL:  AMERICAN LEGION

		HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her honorable discharge be changed to a disability discharge.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She should have been discharged for physical disability instead 
of denied reenlistment.  She was being treated while on active 
duty by the mental health section and did not receive and 
appropriate mental and physical exam prior to her involuntary 
separation.

By amendment, Counsel contends the applicant was involuntarily 
separated without consideration for her medical issues that were 
identified by military doctors.  She was unlawfully ordered to 
complete a mental health questionnaire and was not advised of 
her rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  
Since she was ordered to complete the evaluation based on the 
advice of the medical provider to her commander one would think 
the basis for the evaluation was a disability; therefore, the 
results of the evaluation should have been considered for an MEB 
and said consideration may have resulted in a disability 
retirement for the applicant.

In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of 
documents from her military personnel and medical records, a 
statement from her mother, and a psychological summary.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 12 Feb 86, the applicant commenced her enlistment in the 
Regular Air Force.

On 1 Jun 92, the applicant was evaluated by mental health and 
diagnosed with occupational problems and a personality disorder.  
It was determined the applicant was mentally responsible for her 
behavior and had the mental capacity to understand and 
participate in any administrative proceedings.

On 26 Jun 92, the applicant underwent a follow-up mental health 
examination.  The mental health provider confirmed the findings 
of occupational problems and personality disorder.  The mental 
health provider indicated the applicant’s medical condition 
interfered with her adjustment and caused conflict in the 
military environment.  He further stated the applicant was 
unsuited for continued military service and recommended she be 
administratively separated.

On 15 Oct 93, the applicant’s commander nonselected her for 
reenlistment for failing to maintain the high standards of 
bearing, behavior, and duty performance.  The commander noted 
the applicant received a Letter of Admonishment (LOA), two 
Letters of Reprimand (LOR), three Letters of Counseling (LOC), 
nine Memorandums of Record, an Unfavorable Information File 
(UIF), and two Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) with an 
overall rating of two during the enlistment.  On 20 Oct 93, the 
applicant appealed the nonselection for reenlistment.  On 
18 Feb 94, the applicant’s appeal was denied.

On 3 Mar 94, the applicant was notified that due to her 
nonselection for reenlistment she would be separated under the 
Fiscal Year (FY) 95 Involuntary DOS Rollback Program.  The 
applicant acknowledged the notification and requested a 
separation date of 31 Oct 94.

On 31 Oct 94, the applicant was honorably released from active 
duty and credited with 8 years, 8 months, and 19 days of total 
active service.

According to documents provided by the applicant, she has sought 
medical care through the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) 
and has been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder 
(PTSD).  The DVA medical provider indicates the applicant’s 
diagnosis of personality disorder by the Air Force was wrong and 
his diagnosis of PTSD is correct.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there 
is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  A review of the 
applicant’s available personnel records reflect that for most of 
her service time her duty performance was far below acceptable 
standards and was the basis for her nonselection for 
reenlistment.  Furthermore, there was no indication of a mental 
condition at the time of her separation that warranted 
consideration through the disability evaluation system (DES).  

A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is 
at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD concurs with the recommendation by the AFBCMR Medical 
Consultant and recommends denial indicating there was no 
evidence submitted showing the applicant was unfit due to a 
physical disability at the time of her involuntary discharge.  
Although the applicant was treated for various medical 
conditions throughout her military service, none appeared to 
have been serious enough to warrant consideration through the 
DES.  The applicant was not referred or considered by the DES 
under the provisions of AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for 
Retention, Retirement, and Separation.  The role of the military 
DES is to maintain a fit and vital force by separating service 
members who are unable to perform the duties of their office, 
rank, and grade.  Service members who are separated or retired 
by reasons of physical disability may be eligible for certain 
disability compensation.  The Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) 
makes the decision as to whether a member is to be processed 
through the DES, or when the member is determined medically 
disqualified for continued military service.  The service 
member’s medical treatment facility (MTF) makes the decision of 
conducting an MEB.

Additionally, on 31 Oct 94, the applicant was scheduled for a 
separation medical examination; however, the Physical 
Examination Unit at Edwards AFB noted the applicant’s records 
were reviewed in accordance with AFR 160-43, Medical Examination 
Standards, and it was determined that a separation physical 
examination was not required.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 15 Feb 99, for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit E).  In response, the applicant’s counsel provided 
additional medical documentation for review by the Board 
(Exhibit F).  

________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant notes a review of the additional 
medical information reinforces his previous recommendation.  The 
information provided details the testing and clinical 
determination of the applicant’s personality disorder.  The 
applicant did not exhibit a mental condition that warranted a 
disability separation. 
A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is 
at Exhibit G.

AFPC/DPPD concurs with the Medical Consultant’s reevaluation and 
recommends denying the request for a disability discharge.  The 
preponderance of evidence indicates the applicant’s nonselection 
for reenlistment and subsequent discharge action was not the 
result of a medical condition precluding her from performing her 
military duties, but was the result of her own misconduct.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit H.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the additional Air Force evaluations were forwarded to 
the applicant on 8 Oct 99, for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit I).  On 5 Nov 99, the applicant requested her case be 
administratively closed as she needed additional time to prepare 
a response (Exhibit J).  On 12 Nov 99, the Board staff notified 
the applicant that her case was administratively closed in 
accordance with her request (Exhibit K).  By virtue of a DD Form 
149, with attachments, the applicant requested that her case be 
reopened (Exhibit L).  

________________________________________________________________

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, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility and the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not 
been the victim of an error or injustice.  While the applicant 
argues that she should not have been non-selected for 
reenlistment, but instead referred to through the disability 
evaluation system (DES) prior to her separation, we are not 
convinced that her purported ailments should have resulted in a 
finding that she was unfit for duty and therefore eligible for 
disability benefits.  While the applicant contends the 
determination of the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) to 
award her disability compensation for her post-traumatic stress 
disorder (PTSD) and other ailments supports her argument that 
she should have been referred through the DES instead of being 
non-selected for reenlistment, we are not convinced that the 
DVA’s determination is sufficient to conclude that she should 
have been found unfit at the time of her separation.  In this 
respect, we note the military service disability system, 
operating under Title 10, United States Code (USC), can 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 for the degree of impairment present 
at the "snap shot" time of separation and not based on future 
disease progression.  Thus, the mere presence of a medical 
condition during military service does not automatically 
constitute a basis for a disability separation or retirement.  
On the other hand, the DVA disability system, operating under 
Title 38, USC, takes into account physical conditions that, 
although not unfitting at the time of separation, may later 
progress in severity and alter the individual’s lifestyle and 
future employability.  With this in mind, Title 38, USC, 
provides the DVA authority to award compensation ratings for 
conditions that were not unfitting for military service at the 
time of separation.  As such, it is not uncommon for the DVA to 
award disability compensation for conditions incurred during a 
veteran’s service, even though those conditions did not cause 
the member to be unfit and prematurely cut short his or her 
service.  Therefore, 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-1997-03327 in Executive Session on 18 Jul 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Chair
	, Member
	, Member

?
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-1997-03327 was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Oct 97, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 
                 2 Dec 98.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 29 Jan 99.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Feb 99.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, Counsel dated 12 Apr 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 
                 19 Jul 99.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 22 Sep 99.
     Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Oct 99.
     Exhibit J.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Nov 99.
	   Exhibit K.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 Nov 99.
	   Exhibit L.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Mar 12, w/atchs.




                                   Chair