Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01784
Original file (BC-2006-01784.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01784
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  17 DEC 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His separation code of “JFM” be changed to allow  him  to  reenlist  in  the
service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His major depressive disorder was not pre-existing prior to  his  enlistment
in the Air Force.

In support of his request, the applicant provided documents  extracted  from
his military personnel records.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 25 March 2003, the applicant  entered  active  duty  and  served  in  the
security forces.

A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened on 12 April 2005 and referred  his
case to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB)  with  a  diagnosis  of
major depressive disorder.  On 9 May 2005, the  IPEB  found  him  unfit  for
further military service based on a diagnosis of major depressive  disorder,
resolved.  The IPEB  recommended  that  he  be  discharged.   The  applicant
agreed with the findings and  recommended  disposition  of  the  IPEB.   The
Office of the Secretary of the Air Force  directed  that  he  be  discharged
effective 27 June 2005.  He served two years, three months, and  three  days
on active duty.  He received a separation code of JFM – disability,  existed
prior to service – PEB; and was assigned  an  RE  code  of  2Q  –  personnel
medically retired or discharged.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial.  DPPD  states  the  IPEB  found  the  applicant
unfit for continued service based on a major depressive  disorder  that  had
not been permanently aggravated through military  service.   The  separation
code JFM on the DD Form 214 is  the  correct  code  for  a  member  who  was
separated due to a disability that existed prior to service.

The DPPD complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and states he desires  his  separation
code changed to reenlist in the  service.   The  preponderance  of  evidence
does in fact illustrate with dates and military documents that  the  medical
condition in question did not exist prior  to  service.   No  symptoms  were
reported prior  to  service.   The  Medical  Board  Report,  dated  2  April
2005[sic] requests continued active duty due to a  resolved  condition  that
incurred while entitled to basic pay.

The Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The BCMR Medical  Consultant
states the applicant contends he did  not  experience  depression  prior  to
entering the service, but  the  only  medical  documentation  available  for
review clearly reports a history of depressive symptoms  for  several  years
prior to  entering  military  service.   While  the  episode  of  depression
leading to discharge began while on active duty,  the  reported  pre-service
history of depressive  symptoms  is  consistent  with  recurrent  depressive
disorder and is reinforced by the strong family history of depression.   The
fact that the applicant is presently  doing  well  is  consistent  with  the
clinical pattern of recurrent depression with remissions  and  relapses  and
also  indicates  lack  of  permanent  service   aggravation.    Action   and
disposition in this case are  proper  and  equitable  reflecting  compliance
with Air Force directives that implement the law.

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 28 September 2006, the evaluation was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  for
review and comment within 30 days  (Exhibit  G).   As  of  this  date,  this
office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law  or
regulations.

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of an  error  or  injustice  warranting  his  separation  code  be
changed.  After reviewing the evidence of record, it  is  our  opinion  that
the applicant’s separation from the Air Force was  in  accordance  with  Air
Force policy  in  effect  at  the  time,  which  implements  the  law.   His
contentions are duly noted; however, the comments provided by the Air  Force
and  the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant   adequately   address   his   concerns.
Therefore, we adopt their rationale as the basis for our determination  that
the applicant has not been the victim of either an error or  injustice.   In
view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the  contrary,  we  find
no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or an 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 28 November 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Cathlynn B. Novel, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Judith B. Oliva, Member
                 Mr. Don H. Kendrick, Member




The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-
2006-01784 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Jun 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 27 Jun 06.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jul 06.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Jul 06, w/atch.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 2 Sep 06.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Sep 06.





                       CATHLYNN B. NOVEL
                       Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01188

    Original file (BC-2003-01188.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her commander recommended her discharge for failure to meet Air Force weight standards, while the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) recommended her discharge for a medical condition that existed prior to service (depression). The applicant was discharged on 19 Nov 97 and was issued an RE code of “2Q.” _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02419

    Original file (BC-2007-02419.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibit C, D and F. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPD recommends denial. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02530

    Original file (BC-2004-02530.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 14 February 2001, Officials within the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force determined the applicant was physically unfit for continued military service due to a physical disability which existed prior to military service (EPTS) and directed the applicant be discharged without disability benefits. The BCMR Medical Consultant states the applicant was discharged for recurrent major depression that existed prior to service. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01757

    Original file (BC-2006-01757.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The IPEB reviewed his case and found the member fit and recommended, "Return to Duty." BCMR Medical Consultant's complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated he sought a second opinion by pulmonologist in December 2005 and was diagnosed with asthma after having below normal pulmonary function tests. In this respect, the Board notes...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2006-01757

    Original file (BC-2006-01757.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The IPEB reviewed his case and found the member fit and recommended, "Return to Duty." BCMR Medical Consultant's complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated he sought a second opinion by pulmonologist in December 2005 and was diagnosed with asthma after having below normal pulmonary function tests. In this respect, the Board notes...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00545

    Original file (BC-2005-00545.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    After the review the IPEB determined his PTSD rendered him unfit for further service and recommended he be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) with a compensable percentage of 50 percent. The applicant did not concur with the findings and recommended disposition of the IPEB and requested a formal PEB (FPEB). The Medical Consultant states the preponderance of the record supports the PEB rating of 50 percent for his PTSD.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02986

    Original file (BC-2004-02986.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) was convened on 22 March 1990 and concluded her condition, Bipolar Disorder, manic, moderate, acute, with considerable impairment of social and industrial adaptability, existed prior to service without service aggravation and recommended the applicant be discharged with severance pay. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant states that evidence of the record indicates...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01265

    Original file (BC-2005-01265.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Upon completion of residential treatment, he was transferred to aftercare treatment. His case was to be referred to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). According to emails in the applicant’s records, he was recommended for discharge on 8 Jul 03 for mental disorders under AFI 36-3208, para.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01026

    Original file (BC-2002-01026.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Whereas the Air Force rates a member's disability based on the degree of severity at the time of separation. The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPD recommends the application be denied. Whereas the Air Force rates a member's disability based on the degree of severity at the time of separation.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02390

    Original file (BC-2005-02390.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of her request, the applicant provided a personal statement and documents extracted from her military personnel record. At the time the applicant was being evaluated in the Air Force disability evaluation system, her depression and hypothyroidism were not separately unfitting and did not warrant a separate rating from the rating for fatigue. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we do not believe she has suffered from an...