DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

2 5 1998 

i 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 97-00922 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF 

Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction 
of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A 
Stat 11 6), it is directed that: 

records of the Department of the Air Force relati 
rrected to show that invitational orders be issued 
ilford Hall USAF Medical Center, Texas within 120 days of this 

1 

decision for the purpose of evaluation of her medical condition, and that the results of the 
evaluation be forwarded to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records at the earliest 
practicable date so that all necessary and appropriate actions may be completed. 

It is further directed that the charges for the physical examination be, and hereby are, 

waived. 

c 

L/  Director 
Air Force 

AIR FORCE 
IN THE MATTER OF: 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-00922 

JUN 2 5 1998 

HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

1 

4 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

The  decision  of  the  Formal  Physical  Evaluation  Board  (FPEB) be 
reversed  and  she be  returned  to  active  duty,  with  back  pay  and 
allowances, and all other benefits to which she is entitled. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

Counsel contends that the decision of the Formal PEB was unjust for 
the following reasons:  the incorrect psychiatric diagnoses by the 
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and Wilford Hall Medical  Centers; 
the unwillingness of the 21 June 1996 Formal PEB to grant applicant 
a two-week extension to obtain a psychiatric evaluation at Wilford 
Hall Medical Center; and the arbitrary and capricious deciszon of 
the 21 June 1996 FPEB that applicant was unfit for service. 
The  FPEB's decision  not  to  return  applicant  to  active  duty  was 
arbitrary  and  capricious  because  they  chose  to  disregard  her 
civilian  work  as  an  aircraft  dispatcher, her  written  statements 
'from friends and co-workers, her military record, and her sense of 
responsibility to her civilian employer. 

In  support  of  applicant's request, counsel provided  her  expanded 
comments,  with  documentation  associated  applicant's  military 
service history and her disability separation.  (Exhibit A) 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Applicant  contracted  her  initial  enlistment  in  the  Regular  Air 
Force on 1 September 1982.  She served on continuous active duty, 
entering her last enlistment on 20 March 1988.  Prior to the events 
under review, she attained the grade of staff sergeant, with a date 
of rank of 1 January 1987 and an effective date of 1 March 1987. 
Documentation in the record reflects applicant had ten  (10) days of 
lost time due to three periods of absence without leave  (AWOL) ,  on 
13 May 1993, 1 7   May 1993, and 27 May -  3  June 1993. 
A resume of applicant's APRs/EPRs follows: 

PERIOD CLOSING 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

31 Aug 83 
15 Jul 84 
15 Jul 85 
15 Jul 86 
15 Jul 87 
15 Ju1 88 
15 Jul 89 
15 Jul 90  (EPR) 
30 Mar 91 
30 Mar 92 
30 Nov 92 

9 
9 
9 
9. 
9 
9 
9 
4 
4 
5 
4 

The following is a chronology of events leading up to applicant's 
discharge: 

On  11 August  1993,  a Medical  Evaluation Board  (MEB) convened and 
after consideration of  clinical records, laboratory findings, and 
physical  examination,  established  the  diagnosis  of  psychotic 
disorder, NOS  (atypical psychosis) provisiona, chronic.  Degree of 
impairment for military service:  marked.  Degree of impairment for 
civilian  social  and  industrial  adaptability: 
The 
approximate date of  origin was August  1992.  The MEB  recommended 
referral to the Physical Evaluation Board  (PEB). 

severe. 

-- 

The Informal PEB (IPEB) convened on 2 September 1993, and found the 
applicant  unfit  for continued military  service for a diagnosis of 
psychotic  disorder,  not  otherwise  specified  (atypical psychosis) 
provisional,  chronic,  with  severe  impairment  of  social  and 
industrial  adaptability. 
Another  diagnosis  considered  but  not 
'rateable  was  personality  disorder,  not  otherwise  specified, 
presumptive.  The IPEB recommended temporary retirement, with a 70 
percent compensable disability rating.  Applicant refused to agree 
On  8  October  1993,  she 
or  disagree  with  the  IPEB  findings. 
requested to waive appearance before the formal board and allow the 
staff military attorney to represent her case on her behalf. 
The  FPEB  convened  on  27  October  1993  and  concurred  with  the 
findings  and  recommendations of  the  IPEB.  On  29  October  1993, 
applicant disagreed with  the  findings and  recommended  disposition 
of  the  FPEB  and  submitted a  rebuttal.  On  16  December  1993,  the 
Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  directed  applicant  be  placed  on  the 
Temporary Disability Retired  List  (TDRL) with  a  disability rating 
of 70 percent. 
On  1 February  1994,  applicant  was  honorably  relieved  from  active 
duty under the provisions of AFR  35-4.  Effective 2 February 1994, 
her  name  was  placed  on  the  TDRL, with  a  compensable  disability 
rating of 70 percent.  She was credited with 11 years, 4  months and 
21 days of active Federal service (excludes 10 days of lost time). 

2 

AFBCMR  97-00922 

On 26 May  1995,  applicant was advised that as a temporary retired 
Air  Force  member,  she  was  required  by  law  to  undergo  periodic 
physical  evaluations.  She  was  directed  to  go  to  Scott  AFB  on 
27 June  1995  for  the  purpose  of  a  TDRL  periodic  examination. 
However, she failed to show. 
On 13 July 1995, she was directed to appear at Scott AFB gor a TDRL 
periodic examination on 31 J u l y   1995; however, she did not keep the 
appointment. 

On 13 July 1995, she was also advised that if she failed to report 
and complete her TDRL periodic examination on 31 July 1995, the Air 
Force had no other alternative but to terminate her eligibility to 
receive Air Force retired pay. 
Effective 6  September 1995,  applicant's eligibility to receive Air 
Force retired pay was  terminated for her  failure to report  for a 
scheduled medical examination. 

Subsequently,  applicant  requested  reinstatement  of  her  pay. 
Although  she  refused  to  attend  a  TDRL  examination  by  a  USAF 
psychiatrist,  she agreed  to  submit documentation provided  by  her 
attending civilian physician.  On 12 January 1996, TDRL processing 
procedures were resumed and applicant's pay was reinstated. 
On 27 March 1996,  the  IPEB reviewed applicant's case file as-d the 
updated  medical  documentation. 
Based  on  the  diagnosis  of 
IIPsychotic  disorder,  not  otherwise  specified,  in  remission. 
Psychosis  in full  remissionll  the board  found applicant unfit  for 
duty and recommended she be discharged with severance pay, with a 
zero  percent  disability  rating. 
On  25  April  1996,  applicant 
nonconcurred with the recommended findings and requested appearance 
'before the formal PEB. 
During  the  21  June  1996  formal  hearing,  the  FPEB  requested  a 
consultation  from  the  Department  of  Psychiatry  at  Wilford  Hall 
Medical  Center  in  order  to  clarify  applicant's  psychiatric 
diagnosis and status.  The applicant chose not  to report for this 
directed examination, but rather requested she be given a two-week 
delay  to  take  care  of  personal  matters  prior  to  any  further 
psychiatric  evaluation. 
The  FPEB  denied  her  request  for  an 
extension.  The  FPEB believed  that  the  preponderance  of  evidence 
strongly  supported  both  the  original  diagnosis  and  applicant's 
complete  remission.  In  the  opinion  of  the  FPEB  the  nature  and 
extent  of  the  applicant's medical  condition while  on  active  duty 
argued that she was unfit for the rigors of military service.  The 
FPEB  recommended  discharge with  severance pay  with  a  compensable 
rating of zero percent.  On 21 June 1996, applicant disagreed with 
the findings and recommended disposition of t h e   PEB formal hearing 
and submitted a rebuttal for review. 
On 31 July 1996, the Secretary of the Air Force directed applicant 
be  discharged with  severance pay with a disability rating of  zero 
percent. 

3 

AFBCMR  97-00922 

Effective 31 August  1996, applicant was  removed from the TDRL and 
discharged  in  the  grade  of  staff  sergeant  by  reason  of  physical 
disability per AFI  36-3212 with entitlement to severance pay, with 
a disability rating of zero ( 0 )   percent. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  reviewed this  application  and  opined 
that the applicant should receive a complete psychiatric evaluation 
at Wilford Hall Medical Center as proposed by the FPEB in June 1996 
with a view to return to duty if  she is found mentally  capable of 
enduring the rigors of military life. 

After  citing  the  events  leading up  to  the  applicant's discharge, 
the BCMR Medical Consultant stated there does not appear to be any 
question  that  applicant  suffered  from  some  derangement  of  her 
She  was 
mental  health  starting  on  or  about  November  1992. 
evaluated  in  teaching  hospitals  primarily  by  resident  physicians 
and placed on TDRL status when she was found unfit.  In the ensuing 
21 months until the next  FPEB evaluated her status, she proved  to 
society  and  an  examining  psychiatrist  that  she  was  capable  of 
normal  functioning.  If  she  was  not  afforded  the  opportunity  to 
prove  herself  through  military  consultation because  she w g s   not 
granted a  two-week extension to arrange  to be  away  from her  home 
and  job,  then  it  would  seem  that  a  disservice  was  done  in  this 
case. 
If  the  purpose  of  the  TDRL  is  to  evaluate  a  person's 
residual disability in a period of observation, and if  that person 
then  comes  back  with  all  indications  being  that  recovery  had 
occurred, that person should then be  afforded the chance to prove 
'this.  She should have been  allowed her request  for extension and 
reevaluated as the FPEB suggested. 

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

The  USAF  Physical  Disability  Division, AFPC/DPPD,  reviewed  this 
application and  recommended denial, stating the  applicant has  not 
submitted  any  material  or  documentation  to  show  she  was 
inappropriately  rated  or  processed  under  the  military  disability 
evaluation  system.  She  was  granted  all  rights  to  which  she  was 
entitled under disability law and departmental policy  in effect at 
the time of her disability discharge. 
After  providing  a  synopsis  of  the  processing  of  applicant's 
disability  case,  DPPD  stated  they  did  not  agree  with  the  BCMR 
Medical Consultant's opinion  (Exhibit C)  that there was an error in 
the  PEB  process  ( L e . ,  denied  of  further  delay  in  the  board 
process).  The  applicant  had  clearly  demonstrated  a  history  of 
reluctance  to  submit  to  an  appropriate  military  psychiatric 
examination and the FPEB acted appropriately in denying her request 
for  a  further  delay. 
Additionally,  based  on  the  applicant's 
medical history, she suffered some derangement of her mental health 

4 

AFBCMR  97-00922 

while on active duty.  It is highly unlikely she would be found fit 
to return to the rigors of military life, even if she continues to 
show no impairment of social and industrial adaptability.  AS such, 
a  subsequent psychiatric  exam  at  Wilford  Hall  would  serve  little 
practical purpose. 

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

- 

APPLICANTIS REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
In  response  to  the  AFPC/DPPD  evaluation,  counsel  contends  the 
applicant  has been  cast  in an unfavorable  light  due  to  the  fact 
that  the  AFBCMR  has  not  been  provided  with  all  of  the  facts 
surrounding the two TDRL medical evaluation appointments scheduled 
for applicant.  Between April  and August  1995, applicant received 
two  telephone  calls  from  an  individual  at  Scott  AFB  Hospital 
informing  her  that  she  was  scheduled  for  an  appointment  for  a 
periodic  medical  evaluation.  She was  also told  that  the medical 
evaluation  would  be  performed  by  the  same  doctor  who  initially 
I1evaluated1l her  at  Scott AFB.  She  chose not  to be  evaluated by 
this doctor because  he was  the cause of her eventually being  sent 
to Wright-Patterson Medical Center. 

As  a  result  of  her  desire  for  a  fair  and  accurate  medical 
evaluation,  she  requested  to  either  be  evaluated  at  another 
military hospital or to be evaluated by a private doctor.  She was 
eventually evaluated by a civilian doctor. 
Counsel  further  stated  it  is  true  applicant  requested  a  two-week 
delay of  the Wilford  Hall Medical  Center evaluation.  Her request 
'for  a  delay  was  not  indicative  of  Ira history  of  reluctance  to 
submit  to  an  appropriate  military  psychiatric  examination,Il  but 
merely a desire to get her personal affairs in order. 
The  applicant  has  proved  by  more  than  a  preponderance  of  the 
evidence  that  she was  not  %everly  impaired  for  civilian, social 
and  industrial adaptability1I and  thus  fit  for duty  in the US Air 
Force.  She has worked  at her  civilian job since 1995, performing 
the  same  job  that  she performed  while  on active  duty  in  t h e   Air 
Force -  aircraft dispatching. 
Counsel's response is at Exhibit F. 

THE  BOARD  CONCLUDES  THAT: 
1.  The  applicant  has  exhausted  a l l   remedies provided  by  existing 
law or regulations. 

~~ 

2 .   T h e   application was timely filed. 

5 

AFBCMR  97-00922 

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate 
the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice  warranting 
reevaluation of applicant's  medical condition.  After reviewing the 
evidence of  record, we  believe  that the applicant was  denied  the 
chance to be  evaluated to determine  if  she was  fit to  return to 
active duty.  In this respect, we note the comments from the Chief, 
Medical Consultant, BCMR, in which he states that if the purpose of 
the  Temporary  Disability  Retired  List  (TDRL) is  to  evaluate  a 
person's  residual  disability  in  a  period  of  observation, and  if 
that person then comes back with all indications that recovery had 
occurred, that person  should then be afforded the chance to prove 
this.  We agree with the above comments and recommend applicant's 
records be corrected to the extent indicated below. 

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 RECOMMENDS THAT: 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force 
relating  to  APPLICANT,  be  corrected  to  show  that  invitaLiona1 
orders  be  issued  authorizing  travel  via  aeromedical  airlift  to 
Wilford  Hall  USAF  Medical  Center, Texas within  120 days  of  this 
decision  for the purpose of  evaluation  of  her  medical  condition, 
and  that  the  results  of  the  evaluation  be  forwarded  to  the  Air 
Force  Board  for  Correction  of  Military  Records  at  the  earliest 
practicable date so that all necessary and appropriate actions may 
be completed. 

It  is  further  recommended  that  the  charges  for  the  physical 
examination be, and hereby are, waived. 

The  following members of  the Board  considered this application in 
Executive Session on  15 January 1998, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member 
Mr. Edward H. Parker, Member 

All  members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 March 1997, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/PC, dated 19 June 1997. 

6 

AFBCMR 97-00922 

Exhibit  D. 
Exhibit  E. 
Exhibit  F. 

Letter,  HQ AFPC/DPPD,  dated 29 August  1997. 
Letter,  SAF/MIBR, dated 15 September 1997. 
Letter,  Counsel,  dated 27 September 1997. 

Panel Chair 

7 

AFBCMR  97-00922