RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01696
            INDEX NUMBER:  145.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to add a diagnosis of post  traumatic  stress
syndrome  (PTSD)  with  a  70%  disability  rating  by  the   Physical
Evaluation Board (PEB) that evaluated him on 26 Oct 77.

His records reflect that he was awarded a combined compensable  rating
of 84% by the PEB that convened on 26 Oct 77.

His records be corrected to reflect that he was  retired  effective  6
Dec 77 with a combined compensable disability rating of 80%.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Air Force medical personnel did not  diagnose  or  document  his  PTSD
because PTSD was not formalized as a compensable  disease  process  in
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of  Diseases  until  1981,
four years after he was medically retired.

In support of his  appeal,  the  applicant  provides  a  copy  of  his
approved application for Combat-Related Special Compensation and other
documents.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force 23 Mar 62.   On  27
Sep 77, a Medical Evaluation Board  (MEB)  convened  to  consider  the
applicant’s fitness for continued active duty.   The  MEB  established
four diagnoses on the applicant and recommended he be referred  to  an
Informal Physical  Evaluation  Board.   On  6  Oct  77,  the  Informal
Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) convened and diagnosed the  applicant
with (1) persistent low back pain associated with degenerative changes
and  left  shoulder  pain   associated   with   psycho   physiological
musculoskeletal disorder, with moderate impairment and  (2)  bilateral
tinnitus.  The conditions were given a combined compensable rating  of
46%.  The applicant was found unfit because  of  physical  disability.
On   17 Oct 77, the applicant disagreed with the  IPEB  recommendation
and requested a formal hearing.

On 26 Oct 77, a Formal PEB (FPEB) convened and added the diagnosis  of
degenerative arthritis, cervical spine and left shoulder  to  the  two
previous diagnoses by the  IPEB.   The  FPEB  recommended  a  combined
compensable rating of 51%.  On 26 Oct 77, the applicant disagreed with
the findings and recommendations of the FPEB.   The  applicant’s  case
was referred to the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) Physical Review
Council.  On 7 Nov 77, the SECAF  Physical  Review  Council  concurred
with the FPEB.  On 15 Nov 77, the SECAF directed that the applicant be
placed on the Permanent Disability  Retired  List  with  a  disability
rating of 50%.  The applicant was permanently retired  for  disability
effective 6 Dec 77.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s  request.   Records
indicate that the Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)  rated  the
applicant’s PTSD after he was already  medically  retired.   His  CRSC
application was  approved  by  their  office  based  on  medical  data
provided by the DVA since he is an Air Force retiree.   Being  treated
for a medical condition while on active duty  does  not  automatically
mean that  the  condition  was/is  unfitting  for  continued  military
service at the time.  To be unfitting, the medical condition  must  be
such that it by  itself  precludes  the  person  from  fulfilling  the
purpose for which he or she is employed.  Air Force disability  boards
can only rate unfitting medical conditions based upon the individual’s
medical status at the actual time of the evaluation board.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force evaluation, applicant states that  he
disagrees with the conclusion that he was treated fairly  by  the  Air
Force Disability Evaluation System in that no effort was ever made  to
determine if any post-combat trauma was present, its extent, and  what
treatment  by  the  Air  Force  and  afterwards  would  be  necessary.
Although PTSD did not formally appear in the DSM until after 1981,  it
had been recognized in previous wars under other names,  e.g.,  “shell
shock” and “combat fatigue.”  The applicant believes it was overlooked
to his detriment thus making his  treatment  within  the  DES  totally
inadequate.  He believes that his appeal should be approved since  the
military chose not to do anything to aid him in his  battle  with  the
debilitating PTSD.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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  their  rationale  as  the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of
an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Docket  Number  BC-2004-
01696 in Executive Session on 3 August 2004, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 May 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPD, dated 9 Jun 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jun 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Jul 04.




                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair