RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02701 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His discharge with severance pay with a ten percent disability 
rating be reevaluated for a higher percentage or his discharge 
be upgraded to disability retirement. 

 

________________________________________________________________
_ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He seeks placement on the TDRL or to be permanently disability 
retired so that his dependents can receive benefits. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 20 Sep 00, the applicant contracted his initial enlistment in 
the Regular Air Force. 

 

On 30 Jul 09, the applicant underwent a Medical Evaluation Board 
(MEB). The MEB referred his case to an Informal Physical 
Evaluation Board (IPEB), based on the diagnoses of Dysthymic 
Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and 
Bereavement. On 2 Sep 09, the IPEB reviewed the case and found 
the applicant unfit for further military service with a 
recommendation for discharge with severance pay with a ten 
percent disability rating. The IPEB noted the applicant’s 
condition had stabilized on medication and his prognosis for 
long-term recovery was good. The applicant nonconcurred with the 
findings and recommendation of the IPEB and appealed to the 
Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) for return to duty. On 
18 Nov 09, the FPEB considered the applicant’s case and concurred 
with the findings and recommendation of the IPEB. The applicant 
nonconcurred with the recommendation of the FPEB and appealed to 
the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) for 
retention on active duty. On 26 Feb 10, SAFPC directed the 


applicant be discharged with severance pay with a ten percent 
disability rating. 

 

On 27 May 10, the applicant was honorably discharged for physical 
disability with severance pay and a ten percent disability 
rating. He was credited with nine years, eight months, and eight 
days of total active service. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

APFC/DPSD recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice. The Department of Defense (DoD) and the 
DVA disability evaluation systems operate under separate laws. 
Under Title 10, USC, a PEB must determine if a condition renders 
a member unfit for continued military service. The fact that a 
person may have a medical condition does not mean the condition 
is unfitting for continued military service. To be unfitting, 
the condition must be such that it alone precludes the 
individual from fulfilling their military duties. If the board 
renders a finding of unfit, the law provides appropriate 
compensation due to the premature termination of their career. 
Further, it must be noted the service disability boards must 
rate disabilities based on the individual's condition at the 
time of evaluation. It is the charge of the DVA to pick up 
where the Air Force must, by law, leave off. Under Title 38, 
the DVA may rate any service-connected condition based upon 
future employability or reevaluate based on changes in the 
severity of a condition. This often results in different 
ratings by the DoD and DVA. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there 
is no evidence of an error or injustice. The factors used in 
assessing an individual's level of social impairment include an 
assessment of living arrangements, marital, leisure activity, 
acquaintances, substance use/abuse, and police record. The 
factors considered in assessing an individual's level of 
industrial or occupational impairment include, but are not 
limited to, job stability, type of job, schooling/educational 
pursuits. After using these functional capabilities to determine 
the individual’s level of impairment in social and 
industrial/occupational environments, a mental condition will 
then be characterized as mild, definite/moderate, considerable, 
severe, or total; with a disability rating of 10, 30, 50, 70 or 
100 percent. If the individual’s impairment has been 
characterized as mild they must be able to maintain adequate job 
and social adjustment. The individual who has been characterized 
with a definite level of impairment does not demonstrate a 
significant requirement for hospitalization, but show some signs 
and symptoms of mental illness on examination, and the individual 
with a considerable level of impairment is mentally competent to 


handle financial affairs and to participate in the PEB 
proceedings, but displays overt signs/symptoms of mental illness 
such as; autism, ambivalence, inappropriate affect, dissociative 
thinking, delusions, hallucinations, hyperactivity, depression, 
lack of insight, poor judgment, bizarre behavior, disorientation, 
emotional lability, and memory defects. The Global Assessment of 
Functioning (GAF) is a numeric scale (0 through 100) used by 
mental health clinicians and physicians to rate the social, 
occupational, and psychological functioning of adults. The GAF 
also contributes to the overall assessment of the individual's 
level of functionality or, inversely, the level of impairment. 
The applicant's level of impairment in social and 
industrial/occupational impairment for his Dysthymic Disorder was 
mild; and his GAF was determined to be 80. Based on the evidence 
provided, the applicant was appropriately assigned a ten percent 
disability rating based on the use of both metrics. The 
applicant’s bereavement and ADHD diagnoses are not considered 
compensable disabilities. Furthermore, the applicant has not 
provided the disability rating and rationale for the rating 
conducted by the DVA. The Medical Consultant finds that based 
upon the preponderance of the available evidence the applicant 
has not met the burden of proof of an error or injustice, under 
either set of criteria, to warrant the desired change of record. 

 

The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at 
Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

He is not requesting his disability rating be raised to 70 
percent. He would like to receive a 30 percent disability 
rating to be able to receive full retirement benefits. He was 
diagnosed with depression and planned on seeking treatment once 
he returned from overseas. His unit was not supportive of him 
in seeking treatment for his depression. Although, at the time 
he believed he was fit for duty and wanted to stay on active 
duty, he has come to realize that he was in fact unfit for duty, 
and had he received support from his unit, his depression would 
not have become unmanageable and he would have been able to save 
his career. 

 

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F. 

 

On 25 May 11, his application was administratively closed in 
accordance with his 26 Apr 11 request (Exhibits G & H). 

 

By virtue of a DD Form 149, Application for Correction of 
Military Record, dated 21 Sep 11, the applicant requests his 
application be reopened, reiterates his requests, and provides a 
copy of his DVA rating decision. 

________________________________________________________________
_ 


 

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 an error or injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission, to include his 
rebuttal response, in judging the merits of the case; however, 
we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force 
office of primary responsibility and the AFBMCR Medical 
Consultant and adopt their rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or 
injustice. After a review of the documentation submitted and 
the evidence of record we find no errors in the applicant’s 
discharge processing. We further find the applicant’s medical 
condition was reviewed and rated in accordance with the 
applicable instructions and policy. The applicant was separated 
for an unfitting condition that interfered with his ability to 
continue to serve on active duty and was rated based on the 
seriousness of his condition at the time of separation. It 
appears the applicant now believes his medical condition at the 
time of separation was severe enough to warrant a disability 
rating that would allow him to retire. We note the Air Force 
and the DVA are separate federal agencies and operate under 
different laws and policies. The Air Force is tasked to 
maintain a fit and vital force and assesses a service member's 
disability with respect to fitness for duty and if found unfit, 
compensates the member based on the degree of impairment that 
cut-short their military career. The DVA, however, rates for 
any and all service-connected conditions, to the degree they 
interfere with future employability, without consideration of 
fitness. When combined these two systems provide a continuum of 
coverage of our veterans. For these reasons, it is not uncommon 
for the military department and the DVA to issue different 
ratings. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 
we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this 
application. 

 

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 DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-02701 in Executive Session on 7 Feb 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Jul 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 13 Aug 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 

 13 Apr 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Apr 11. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Apr 11. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 26 Apr 11. 

 Exhibit H. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 May 11. 

 Exhibit I. DD Form 149, dated 21 Sep 11, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair