AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

SECOND ADDENDbPl TO 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  9 5 - 0 0 2 3 8  
COUNSEL:  None 

m2r  1998 

HEARING DESIRED:  No 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His records be corrected to show he completed his contract with the 
Air Force  (4 years of  active duty service and 2 years of  inactive 
reserve service) ,  he was awarded the Good Conduct Medal  (GCM) ,  he 
be awarded all monies due as a result of the foregoing corrections, 
and, he be entitled to a service (disability) pension. 

RESUME OF THE CASE: 
The applicant was discharged from the Regular Air Force because of 
misconduct  with  a  general  discharge  on  1 December  1 9 9 2 .  
He  had 
served 1 year, 10 months and 28  days on active duty.  On 2 7   August 
1 9 9 6 ,   the  Board  considered  the  applicant's  request  that  his 
discharge be  upgraded  to honorable.  After  reviewing the evidence 
provided, the Board determined that the reason for the applicant's 
separation  would  be  more  properly  defined  as  unsatisfactory 
performance rather than misconduct, and recommended that the record 
be  corrected to show he was honorably discharged  for that reason. 
A  Memorandum  for the  Chief  of  Staff directing  the  corrections to 
the  record  be  accomplished  was  issued  on  20  December  1 9 9 6   (see 
AFBCMR 95-00238, with Exhibits A through GI. 
On 6  March  1 9 9 7 ,   the applicant submitted an application requesting 
additional relief.  His requests were considered and denied by the 
Board  on  21  July  1 9 9 7   (see  the  Addendum  to  the  Record  of 
Proceedings, with Exhibit H). 
In  the  Record  of  Proceedings  pertaining  to  the  Board's  initial 
consideration of this appeal, it was reported that in December 1993 
and May  1994, the DVA denied service-connection for the applicant's 
\\nervous condition"  which  had  been  diagnosed  as  a  "Dysthymic 
Upon  appeal,  on  2 4   March  1 9 9 7 ,   the  applicant  was 
Disorder. " 
granted  service-connection  for  his  condition, with  a  compensable 
rating of 30%  from 2 December 1 9 9 2 .  
The  applicant  appealed  this 
decision, contending that his condition was of  such a severity to 
warrant a higher rating.  On 24 October 1 9 9 7 ,   his appeal was denied 
by the Board of Veterans' Appeals. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

.

 

-

He  disagrees  with  the  Board‘s  decision  to  deny  his  request  for 
further relief.  He does not believe that the record supports the 
actions which were taken against him and he was misled by his area 
defense counsel. 
He has been granted a  30%  disability rating by  the Department of 
Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)  based  on  the  diagnosis  of  “Dysthymic 
Disorder.”  For over one year before his separation, he was seen by 
an  Air  Force  psychiatrist  because  of  insomnia,  depression  and 
anxiety.  The best the Air Force’s psychiatrists could come up with 
was  “occupational problems.”  Yet, two DVA psychiatrists who  saw 
him  had  no problem  diagnosing  his  condition.  He  believes  it  is 
possible that the Air Force did not properly diagnose and label his 
condition because,  had  they  done  so, he  would  have  been  treated 
while he did his job  or retired for disability with a pension for 
the rest of  his  life.  He also believes  he  was  separated because 
this course of action was seen as more cost efficient. 
He is now in therapy and taking prozac daily and will  continue to 
do  so  for  the  rest  of  his  life.  Because  of  everything  the Air 
Force put him through, he believes approval of the requested relief 
would  be  appropriate.  In  addition, he  should  be  entitled  to  a 
service pension because  the Air  Force willfully  and  intentionally 
failed  to  diagnose  his  condition  to  prevent  him  from  receiving 
treatment. 
The applicant’s amended requests for correction of records, and the 
documents  submitted  in  support  of  the  appeal,  including selected 
service and DVA medical records, are at Exhibit I. 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed the application and is of  the 
opinion that no change to the records is warranted. 
The  Medical  Consultant  stated  that  DSM-IV,  the  D i a s n o s t i c   and 
S t a t i s t i c a l   Manual  of  Mental  Health  Disorders,  is  specific  in the 
requirement for having a 2-year period of qualifying symptoms prior 
to making a diagnosis of dysthymic disorder, and the period of time 
the  applicant  served  (less than  2  years)  precluded  making  the 
diagnosis  from the  symptoms he presented.  Indeed, the  fact  that 
his  initial  DVA  encounters  also  failed  to  result  in  such  a 
diagnosis  adds  weight  to  the  appropriateness  of  his  previous 
treatment.  Only after his symptoms had continued for over 2  years 
was  the  diagnosis  evident  and  finally  established  in  September 
1993. 
After reviewing the evidence, the BCMR Consultant is of  the opinion 
that  there  was  no  willful  or  intentional  failure  to  diagnose  a 
condition  that,  technically, was  not  diagnosable  given  the  time 

2 

9 5 - 0 0 2 3 8  

frame  of  his  service time.  Clairvoyance  is not  a  medical  skill 
that can be utilized to predict futhre diagnoses.  However, the DVA 
is tasked with compensation of conditions that arise in the course 
of a person’s military service or which are service-aggravated, and 
it  is  appropriate that  the  applicant  is receiving  their  services 
for  this  problem  that  was  finally  diagnosable  9  months  after 
completion of his active duty service. 

A complete copy of this evaluation is at Exhibit J. 

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR’ FORCE  EVALUATION: 
The  applicant  reviewed  the  advisory  opinion  and  reiterated  his 
contentions that  he  was  not  properly  treated  by  military  medical 
authorities and his condition was not properly diagnosed while he 
was  in  the  service.  Noting  the  Medical  Consultant‘s statement 
concerning  the  responsibilities of  the  DVA,  the  applicant  stated 
that the service he receives from the DVA does not relieve the Air 
Force  of  responsibility or  liability.  The  DVA  did  not  breach  a 
contract with  him, the Air  Force did.  If  the Air  Force had  not 
breached its contract with him 25 months prematurely, his disorder 
would have manifested itself while he was still in the Air Force. 

After  summarizing  the  medications  he  was/is  taking  and  their 
affects, he  stated  that  a  careful  study  of  all  the  records  and 
evidence will  show that his  claim is well-grounded.  The evidence 
will also show that everything he has written to the Air Force over 
the  years  is  true  and  accurate.  Granting  his  requests would  be 
fair, just  and  equitable, and  would  bring  mental  closure to  that 
part of his life. 

The applicant’s review is at L. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
1.  In a  previous  review of  this application, we  determined  that 
insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate 
the  existence  of  probable  error or  injustice with  respect  to  the 
decision  by  Air  Force  authorities  to  effect  the  applicant’s 
separation in 1992 or to favorably consider his request for award 
of the GCM.  It was our opinion that the available record provided 
proper  support  for  a  finding  that  the  termination  of  the 
applicant‘s service in 1992 was  in the best  interests of  both  the 
applicant  and the Air  Force.  There is nothing  in the applicant’s 
most recent submission which would cause us to believe the contrary 
was  the  case. 
In  his  most  recent  submission,  the  applicant‘s 
arguments  are  centered  around  a  diagnosis  rendered  in  September 
1993.  He  alleges he  was  improperly treated  by  Air  Force  health 
care providers and, had  his condition been diagnosed while he was 
in the Air  Force, he  would  have  been  retired because  of  physical 

3 

9 5 - 0 0 2 3 8  

disability.  We do not  agree with the applicant's  reasoning based 
on the following discussion. 
2.  Contrary  to  the  applicant's  belief,  even  though  the  DVA 
rendered a diagnosis of "Dysthymic Disorder" 9 months after the his 
separation and ultimately awarded him a compensable rating of  3 0 % ,  
these  facts,  in  and  of  themselves,  do  not  establish  that  the 
applicant was improperly treated while he was in the Air Force nor 
do  they  support  his  asserted  entitlement  to  a  retroactive 
correction of the record to show he was retired from the Air Force 
We  have  noted  the  assessment  of  the 
because  of  disability. 
applicant's  assertions  by  the  Medical  Consultant, who  indicated 
that  a  definitive  diagnosis  of  the  applicant's  condition  is 
technically not possible  until  a 2-year period  of  observation has 
elapsed.  Based  on  this  information  and  in  the  absence  of  any 
evidence  by  the  applicant  which  successfully refutes  the  Medical 
Consultant's  assessment of  the case, we have no basis to conclude 
that the applicant's  treatment while in the Air Force was based on 
anything  other  than  accepted  medical  principles  or  that  the 
administrative  termination  of  his  service  was,  from  a  medical 
standpoint, improper.  By law, the responsibility for treating and 
compensating  eligible  veterans  for  service-connected  conditions 
which become diagnosable after separation rests with the DVA.  In 
view of the above and our finding that there is no evidence in the 
available  record  which  establishes  to  our  satisfaction  that  the 
applicant's  separation from the Air Force in 1992,  as corrected by 
this Board, is erroneous or unjust, we have no basis to favorably 
consider the applicant's  requests for additional relief. 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 
The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate the existence of probable 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 November 12, 1998, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chairman 
Mr. Douglas J. Heady, Member 
Mr. Kenneth L. Reinertson, Member 

The following additional documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit I.  Letter from the applicant, dated August 13, 1997, 

with attachments. 

4 

9 5 - 0 0 2 3 8  

Exhibit  J. 

Exhibit  K. 
Exhibit  L. 

Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated February 9, 
1998. 
Letter, AFBCMR, dated February 9, 1998. 
Letter from the applicant, dated February 16, 1998. 

yA& fld 

MARTHA  MAUST 
Panel Chair 

5 

95-00238