RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04820 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) be included in his medical 
disability computation and he be granted a medical retirement. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He has been granted service connection by the Department of 
Veterans Affairs (DVA) for post-traumatic stress disorder 
(PTSD), which was not considered during this Medical Evaluation 
Board (MEB). He was told to seek this correction to gain 
medical retirement. 

 

In support of the appeal, the applicant provides his DVA rating 
and his DD Form 214, Certificate of Discharge or Release from 
Active Duty. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who 
served from 21 July 1999 through 25 August 2007. A Medical 
Evaluation Board referred him to an Informal Physical Evaluation 
Board (IPEB) for chronic low back pain. 

 

On 13 February 2007, the IPEB found him unfit and recommended he 
be discharged under the provisions of Title 10, U.S.C for 
chronic low back pain, with disc herniation and recommended he 
receive severance pay with a disability rating of 10 percent. 
On 13 March 2007, the Secretary of the Air Force directed the 
applicant be separated from the service for physical disability. 

 

He received a disability discharge and his service was 
characterized as honorable. He was credited with 7 years, 
9 months and 5 days of active duty service. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 


The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The applicant 
sustained a back injury in December 2005 after jumping in a 
bunker with full gear while evading enemy fire. He reportedly 
ignored the pain until March 2006 when he experienced a stabbing 
pain as he came down while playing basketball. The MRI scans 
revealed the presence of an L5-S1 herniated disc. He received 
an epidural treatment on 12 May 2005 and reported sustained 
relief for one month. A second injection was initiated, but the 
physician claimed the applicant was somewhat hostile and 
disrespectful causing them to opt out of the treatment. He was 
ultimately found unfit by an IPEB and discharged with severance 
and 10 percent disability rating. The applicant agreed with the 
finding and recommendation of the IPEB. 

 

The Board and the applicant are reminded that Chapter 61, Title 
10 U.S.C states, Military Departments, can by law only offer 
compensation for illnesses, injuries or diseased that caused or 
contributed early termination, and then only to the degree of 
impairment present at the snap shot in time of final military 
disposition. The evidence supports the principal impediment to 
the applicant’s functioning at the time of referral for MEB was 
his recurring thoracolumbar pain, and not an underlying PTSD. 

 

The Department of Defense Instruction 1332.38, states if the 
evidence establishes that the service member adequately 
performed his or her duties until the time the service member 
was referred for physical evaluation, the member may be 
considered fit for duty even though medical evidence indicates 
questionable physic ability to continue to perform. It is clear 
the applicant’s thoracolumbar pain interfered with his military 
service. However, under another paragraph, it becomes clear 
that the mere presence of a medical condition determined service 
connected, in this case PTSD, is not sufficient for, nor 
automatically warrants an unfit finding by the military, it is 
established that there is a cause and effect relationship 
between the two factors. The Medical Consultant was unable to 
identify a cause and effect between the de novo diagnosis of 
PTSD, whether acute or delayed, and the applicant’s ability to 
perform his duties. 

 

The DVA operates under Title 38 and is authorized to offer 
compensation for any medical condition with nexus to military 
service, without regard to its demonstrated or proven impact 
upon a service member’s retainability, fitness to serve, or 
narrative reason for release from military service. This is the 
reason individuals can be found fit for release from military 
service for one reason and yet receive compensation ratings from 
the DVA for service-connected, but not military unfitting at the 
time of release from military service. 

 

The Medical Consultant noted the Air Force issued a 10 percent 
rating for the applicant’s back ailment, whereas the DVA granted 
him a 20 percent rating. This is likely based upon a change in 
service versus post-service thoracolumbar range of motion 
findings. However, either rating would result in discharge with 
severance pay. 


 

The record provided does not meet the burden of proof of an 
error or injustice that warrants the desired change of record. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant requests the Board remember there is a real person 
behind this file, with real problems. He cannot begin to 
explain what he’s been through and how PTSD has affected his 
life. While in the Air Force, he could not be honest with his 
superiors, especially handling weapons every day. PTSD 
completely devastated his life. He is a single dad and needs 
the money. It’s only $350.00, but he needs the help and he 
needs insurance for his children. 

 

The PTSD is well documented in his medical records and shows its 
service connected. He was discharged so quickly, he did not 
have time to see a mental health professional. He was treated 
unfairly and rushed out. PTSD is a serious issue and he has 
taken classes to help deal with that along with anxiety and 
depression. He now needs the Air Force as well as the DVA; it’s 
all he has. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, 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 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 
carefully considered the available evidence of record; however, 
we found no indication the actions taken to affect the 
applicant’s discharge were improper or contrary to the 
provisions of the governing instructions. Therefore we agree 
with the opinion and recommendation of the BCMR Medical 
Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice. We are sympathetic to the applicant’s 
situation; however, 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 BCMR Docket Number 
BC-2011-04820 in Executive Session on 2 October 2012, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

, Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dtd 14 Jul 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dtd 2 Sep 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dtd 4 Sep 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant’s Response, dtd 11 Sep 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair