RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00488 

COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His honorable discharge be changed to a medical disability 
retirement. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress disorder (PTSD) many 
years before ending his enlistment on 18 June 2007. Since PTSD 
is an unfitting condition, he feels he should have been processed 
through the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and then a Physical 
Evaluation Board (PEB) for medical retirement, prior to the end 
of his enlistment. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of 
Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) Rating Decisions, dated 
29 February 2008 and 1 July 2010. In support of the applicant’s 
rebuttal, the applicant provides a DVA Rating Decision, dated 
20 September 2011. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The available record shows the applicant entered active duty in 
the Regular Air Force On 19 June 2001, and was honorably 
discharged on 18 June 2007, by reason of completion of active 
duty service commitment. He served six years on active duty. 

 

The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s 
military service records, are contained in the BCMR Medical 
Consultant’s evaluation at Exhibit C. 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The BCMR Medical 
Consultant states the applicant is correct in his assertion that 


he was diagnosed with PTSD well before the end of his enlistment 
on 18 June 2007. In fact, his service treatment records show 
that PTSD was considered a primary diagnosis, along with Partner 
Relations Problems, as early as January 2006. However, he has 
made an incorrect assertion that “since PTSD is an unfitting 
condition,” he feels he should have been processed through an MEB 
and subsequent PEB for a medical retirement. While some 
illnesses and injuries, by virtue of their nature, may trigger an 
MEB, this is not automatically the case for PTSD. 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant indicates that the Military 
Disability Evaluation System (DES), established to maintain a fit 
and vital fighting force, can by law only offer compensation for 
and when one or more service incurred diseases or injuries 
specifically renders a member unfit for continued active service 
by a PEB; or were the cause for career termination. Thus, the 
mere presence of a given medical condition does not automatically 
qualify a member for disability evaluation and a medical 
separation or retirement. For an individual to be considered 
unfit for continued military service there must be a medical 
condition that prevents or interferes with the performance of 
duties commensurate with office, grade, rank, or rating; 
notwithstanding the impact upon the individual’s deployability. 
Unlike the Military Department, the DVA, operating under a 
different set of laws with a different purpose, is authorized to 
offer compensation for any medical condition determined service 
incurred, without regard to its previous impact upon a service 
member’s retainability, fitness to serve, or the narrative reason 
for release from military service. This is the reason a veteran 
may receive compensation for a condition that was not militarily 
unfitting during service, but was assigned compensation by the 
DVA after discharge or in preparation for timely benefits upon 
transitioning from military service. The DVA is also empowered 
to conduct periodic reevlauatations for the purpose of adjusting 
the disability rating (increase or decrease) as the level of 
impairment for a given medical condition may vary (worsen or 
improve) over the lifetime of the veterans. 

 

It is the BCMR Medical Consultant’s opinion that the applicant 
has not met the burden of proof of an error or injustice that 
warrants the desired change of the record. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

He believes he would have been processed through the Disability 
Evaluation System (DES) if he had stayed in the Air Force because 
he received a letter on 20 June 2007 claiming he was to go before 


an MEB; however, he was already discharged effective 18 June 
2007. He received the letter as he was moving and it was lost in 
the transition, but he knows he received one. While his PTSD was 
a problem, he believes his other medical conditions kept him from 
making the military a career. 

 

The applicant’s complete rebuttal, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 and do not find that it supports a determination that he 
was improperly discharged. We note the applicant’s contention 
that he should have received a medical discharge; however, as 
indicated by the BCMR Medical Consultant, there is no evidence in 
the available military medical records to show he was ever 
considered for, or diagnosed with, a condition while on active 
duty that would qualify for referral under the Military 
Disability Evaluation System. In view of the above and absent 
persuasive evidence the applicant was denied rights to which 
entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or 
appropriate standards were not applied, we agree with the opinion 
and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not 
been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, 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 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-00488 in Executive Session on 29 November 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-00488: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Jan 11, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 7 Oct 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Oct 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 26 Oct 11, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair