RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2011-03032

		COUNSEL:  

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His disability discharge be changed to a permanent disability 
retirement.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) erred in rating his Bipolar 
Disorder at ten percent.  The medical evidence supported a 
rating of 50 percent.  The PEB also misdiagnosed him with a 
Personality Disorder.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 24 Mar 92, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the 
Regular Air Force.

On 28 Feb 05, the applicant underwent a Medical Evaluation Board 
(MEB).  The MEB diagnosed him with bipolar disorder, personality 
disorder, and migraines.  The MEB recommended returning the 
applicant to duty and referred his case to the Informal Physical 
Evaluation Board (IPEB).

On 15 Apr 05, the IPEB reviewed the applicant’s case and 
recommended discharge with severance pay with a ten percent 
disability rating for bipolar disorder.  On 26 Apr 05, the 
applicant concurred with the findings and recommendations of the 
IPEB.

On 7 Jun 05, the applicant was honorably discharged for physical 
disability with severance pay and a ten percent disability 
rating.  He was credited with 13 years, 2 months, and 14 days of 
total active service.

On 13 Oct 11, the applicant’s counsel submitted a request to 
temporarily withdraw the applicant’s request.

On 21 Oct 11, the Board staff informed the applicant and counsel 
that the applicant’s case had been administratively closed per 
counsel’s request.  The applicant’s counsel later provided 
rebuttal comments and requested the applicant’s case be 
reopened.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C and H.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSD recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice occurring during the disability process.  
The IPEB reviewed the applicant’s case and rated his bipolar 
disorder at 30 percent.  The Board deducted 20 percent for the 
personality disorder per DOD guidance, which resulted in a 
combined compensable rating of ten percent.

DOD and the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) disability 
evaluation systems operate under separate laws.  Under Title 10, 
United States Code (USC), a PEB must determine if a condition 
renders the service member unfit for continued military service.  
The fact the member may have a medical condition does not mean 
that 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 that the service 
disability boards must rate disabilities based on the 
individual's condition at the time of evaluation.  The DVA has 
the responsibility of rating the disabilities from where the AF 
left off.  Furthermore, 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. 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The evidence indicates at the time of the IPEB the applicant had 
not received a diagnosis for a personality disorder.  The 
medical note dated 2 Feb 05 does not reflect a diagnosis for 
Axis II.  In subsequent medical notes the Axis II diagnosis 
either reflects no diagnosis or deferred.  The medical records 
show that two days prior to the MEB the applicant’s diagnosis 
for Axis II was deferred.  All throughout the MEB process the 
applicant’s medical records shows a consistent Axis II diagnosis 
of deferred.  The IPEB deducted 20 percent from the initial 
finding due to the assumption the applicant had been diagnosed 
with a personality disorder.  The IPEB was not aware that the 
MEB repeatedly declined to diagnose the applicant with a 
personality disorder.  Had the IPEB been made aware of the fact 
the applicant had not received a diagnosis of personality 
disorder, the results of the proceedings would have called for 
the case to be returned for clarification.  The medical evidence 
shows the IPEB based its decision on inaccurate information. 

In support of his response, Counsel provides an expanded 
statement and copies of documents extracted from the applicant’s 
military medical records (Exhibit G).
________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial noting there is 
no evidence of an error or injustice.  Counsel contends the 
subsequent medical notes of the clinical psychiatrist would have 
altered the decision of the IPEB.  Although, the clinical 
psychiatrist referenced Axis II as (deferred), the Medical 
Consultant opines this is a harmless dictation error and is not 
an attempt to reverse the diagnosis of a personality disorder.  
The applicant’s Jan 05 admission notes reflect Axis II as 
antisocial traits, therefore reinforcing and confirming the 
diagnosis of a personality disorder.  The applicant’s GAF scores 
at the time of discharge were recorded at 60.  A GAF score of 60 
is associated with "Moderate symptoms, moderate difficulty in 
social, occupational or school functioning."  This description 
most closely relates to a Veterans Administration Schedule for 
Rating Disabilities (VASRD) of "Occupational and social 
impairment due to mild or transient symptoms which decrease work 
efficiency and ability to perform occupational tasks only during 
periods of significant stress, or; symptoms controlled by 
continuous medication."  The VASRD rating would be ten percent, 
which is consistent with the ten percent rating given by the 
IPEB.  Although the IPEB used a different formula to process the 
applicant's case the results are the same using two different 
approaches.  

The DVA initially rated the applicant at 50 percent and later 
increased the rating to 70 percent.  The DVA, operating under a 
different set of laws, is empowered to periodically re-evaluate 
veterans for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating 
should their degree of impairment vary over time.  The DVA is 
authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition 
determined service incurred, without regard to its demonstrated 
or proven impact upon a service member's retainability.


A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at 
Exhibit H.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation was forwarded 
to the applicant on 18 Apr 13, for review and comment within 30 
days (Exhibit I).  As of this date, no response has been received 
by this office.

________________________________________________________________

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.  The 
applicant believes he was misdiagnosed with a personality 
disorder and this misdiagnosis resulted in him receiving a 
decreased disability rating for his bipolar disorder which 
prohibited him from receiving disability retirement.  We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission, to include the 
rebuttal response, in judging the merits of the case; however, 
we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force 
office of primary responsibility and the AFBCMR 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 thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record 
and the applicant’s complete submission, we find no errors in 
the applicant’s disability processing.  Based on DOD’s policy at 
the time, the applicant received reduction in his disability 
rating due to his non-compensable medical condition (personality 
disorder).  There was no evidence presented which would lead us 
to believe that the disability rating assigned at final 
disposition of his case was in error or contrary to the 
provisions of the governing instruction.  Furthermore, the Air 
Force and the DVA are separate federal agencies and operate 
under different laws and policies.  The Air Force, under Title 
10, 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, under Title 38, 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, after a careful review of all the facts and 
circumstances of this case, and in the absence of evidence to 
the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought in this application.

________________________________________________________________

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-2011-03032 in Executive Session on 21 Nov 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Jul 11, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 26 Aug 11.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Sep 11.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, Counsel, dated 13 Oct 11.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 21 Oct 11.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, Counsel, dated 3 Dec 12, w/atchs.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated
                 15 Apr 13.
     Exhibit I.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 Apr 13.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair