RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-01037 

 COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. She be medically retired with a 50 percent disability rating. 

 

2. As an alternatative, she be continued on the Temporary 
Disability Retired List (TDRL). 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

In a 14 page brief, the applicant’s counsel makes the following key 
contentions: 

 

1. The applicant requests to be medically retired under Chapter 61 
of Title 10, with a disability rating of 50 percent for a Major 
Depressive Disorder and an Eating Disorder. She believes the 
opinion of the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) that found 
her unfit for duty and recommended her for discharge with 
10 percent severance pay to be arbitrary, capricious, and contrary 
to law and regulation. 

 

2. The applicant was a four-year varsity athlete attending the Air 
Force Academy as a cadet who was very impressive; she was on the 
Dean’s List for two of seven semesters and on the Commandant’s List 
for four of seven semesters. Her lifelong dream was to become an 
astronaut; however, she began having troubles at the academy when 
she found out that she no longer qualified as a pilot, thus, 
questioning her self-worth and feeling like she had been abandoned 
which led to a cycle of hypomanic periods punctuated at varying 
intervals by plummeting depression, which led to serious suicide 
ideations. 

 

3. According to her medical records, her eating disorder existed in 
a milder form during high school, but was aggravated by her major 
depressive disorder. 

 

4. The applicant was formally evaluated by the Cadet Mental Health 
Clinic in late 2006 and was found to be suffering from Major 
Depressive Disorder, recurrent, moderate. The Medical Evaluation 
Board (MEB) found both her military and social impairment to be 
rated as “considerable.” Thus, the MEB placed her on the TDRL with 


a 30 percent disability rating. Noted by the applicant’s counsel, 
the doctor who signed off on the diagnosis and who is a 
psychiatrist did not conduct a single clinical interview with the 
applicant which is in direct contradiction of the governing 
regulation. 

 

5. The academy involuntarily hospitalized her right after she was 
notified that the MEB found her unfit for duty and recommended her 
for discharge. Noting an oversight in processing her for 
discharge, the academy forgot that she was a senior cadet who was 
entitled to consideration to permit her to graduate if she were 
otherwise qualified. This oversight led to a tragic-comical series 
of mistakes until she was finally disenrolled from the academy on 
26 Jan 07. 

 

6. In 2008, she was reevaluated by an MEB at Dover AFB, DE. She 
was found to have Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent, severe, in 
full remission. The board’s assessment of the chances of 
recurrence was 90 percent. The board also concluded the occupation 
and social impairment due to “mild or transient symptoms” would 
reduce her work effectiveness “only during periods of significant 
stress.” The applicant appealed to a FPEB which voted 2-1 to 
sustain the decision of the reevaluating IPEB that convened on 
31 Mar 08. 

 

7. The FPEB found her medically disqualified for service, but only 
rated her disability at 10 percent. The decision did not mention 
the 90 percent risk of a relapse into suicidal despondency or the 
evaluation that rated her with a 50 percent disability rating for 
“considerable” and “significant” impairment. The physician on the 
FPEB recommended continuation on the TDRL stating the applicant 
still exhibited occupational and social instability as reflected in 
three different occupations, one prolonged travel overseas, and 
inability to complete school, all within the current TDRL period 
and while taking all her prescribed medications. The physician 
concluded by stating “she has not stabilized yet and that further 
time with her new psychiatry and psychology team should be granted 
in order to see if her three Axis I condition[s] have reached a 
maintenance therapy stage.” The applicant had several episodes of 
major depressive acts (see pages 3-5 of her counsel’s brief) after 
receiving the FPEB’s decision. 

 

8. The Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) adopted 
an entirely different rationale for denying the applicant’s request 
which is likewise unsupportable based on an incomplete and 
incorrect diagnosis of a borderline personality disorder and is 
further an unacceptable supposition that the disabling symptomology 
is the product of the personality disorder and not the mood 
disorder. 

 

 

9. Pages 9-13 of her counsel’s brief supports the reasons she 
should be medically retired. Her counsel believes the applicant 
was misdiagnosed by the Air Force and she should receive at least a 


50 percent medical retirement for Occupational and Adjustment 
Disorder. 

 

10. Substantial error has occurred in this case, as neither the 
FPEB nor SAFPC ever looked at the applicant’s medical records which 
reflect accredited professional diagnoses. 

 

11. Further specific information can be found in her counsel’s 
brief at Exhibit A. 

 

In support of her request, applicant provides a copy of her 
counsel’s brief and a letter from her psychiatrist. 

 

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

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant met an IPEB on 13 Nov 06 and was found unfit for duty 
and was placed on the TDRL with a 30 percent disability rating for 
Major Depressive Disorder, an Eating Disorder not otherwise 
specified and an Anxiety Disorder not otherwise specified. The 
IPEB recommended her for a 50 percent disability rating, but 
deducted 20 percent for an Eating Disorder, which resulted in a 30 
percent compensable disability rating. However, after she was 
reevaluated, the IPEB found the applicant’s medical condition had 
improved and recommended she be removed from the TDRL and separated 
with a 10 percent disability rating with severance pay. The 
applicant appealed to the FPEB; however, on 8 Jul 08, the FPEB 
agreed with the IPEB findings and upheld the decision to separate 
her with a 10 percent disability rating. The applicant appealed 
the FPEB’s decision to SAFPC which also denied her appeal and 
recommended her for separation with severance pay. 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

In a four page evaluation, the BCMR Medical Consultant recommends 
placing her on the TDRL with a 30 percent disability rating 
effective the date of her removal from the TDRL, followed by a 
repeat psychiatric evaluation and adjudication through the Military 
Disability Evaluation System (MDES). The Medical Consultant 
recommends the applicant’s evaluation be concluded with a V-Axis 
diagnostic format and her level of impairment in civilian social 
and industrial or occupational adaptability be determined. The 
Medical Consultant finds this approach particularly valuable in 
correctly diagnosing the applicant’s medical condition and removing 
medications that may have seriously exacerbated her symptoms. If 
the applicant actually has a bipolar disorder and not a personality 
disorder, it would seem to be unfair to attribute her medical 
condition to one disorder that may overlap another disorder. 

 


The Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant’s counsel responded by concurring with the Medical 
Consultant’s recommendation to place her on the TDRL for further 
evaluation. 

 

Counsel’s complete rebuttal 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 timely filed. 

 

3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate 
the existence of error or injustice warranting a measure of 
relief. In this regard, when the applicant was initially placed 
on the TDRL her condition was diagnosed with a “moderate” major 
depressive disorder, recurrent, associated with anxiety disorder, 
not otherwise specified, which coincides with a 50% disability 
rating in accordance with the VASRD; however, her eating disorder 
was considered to be EPTS, thus, 20% disability rating was 
subtracted from her current rating giving her a 30% combined 
compensable disability rating. Upon reevaluation it was 
determined by the IPEB and FPEB that her condition was at the 
“severe” level; though, it was noted to be in full remission. 
Consequently, her overall rating was reduced to a 10% disability 
rating. However, as noted by the BCMR Medical Consultant, the 
applicant’s diagnosis of major depressive disorder stood from 2006 
until it was challenged by a board certified psychiatrist in 2008. 
The disparity between the determination of the attending 
psychiatrist and the FPEB appears to be based upon the fact that 
the psychiatrist actually conducted clinical interviews and 
testing, resulting in a different diagnosis and treatment. Based 
on this, we are unable to ascertain whether or not the severity of 
the applicant’s condition was properly adjudicated during her 
reevaluation. It is our opinion that because of the differing 
medical opinions, the applicant should have remained on the TDRL 
for further observation and evaluation. Restoring the applicant’s 
TDRL status would enable the Air Force to more accurately 
reevaluate the diagnosis. Therefore, we recommend her 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 issues 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: 

 

 a. On 6 Dec 06, she elected not to participate in the Survivor 
Benefit Program. 

 

 b. She was not removed from the Temporary Disability 
Retirement List (TDRL) and discharged with severance pay on 23 Nov 
08, but on that date was continued on the TDRL. 

 

 c. A TDRL reevaluation be performed and the results of the re-
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. 

 

______________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 
BC-2009-01037 in Executive Session on 24 Nov 09, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

, Panel Chair 

, Member 

, Member 

 

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The 
following documentary evidence for Docket Number BC-2009-01037 was 
considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Mar 09, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 30 Jun 09. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Jul 09. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 16 Sep 09. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair