RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04826 

COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her condition of acute Cytomegalovirus (CMV), which she had 
during the fall of 2010 though the spring of 2011, be 
acknowledged as a confounding factor in determining any 
psychiatric diagnoses. 

 

The applicant amended her request by correspondence, dated 
16 February 2012 and requests her DD Form 356, Findings and 
Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board be 
amended as follows: 

 

1. The diagnosis of “Nonspecific Brain MRI Abnormalities” 
be added with a byline that indicates that such abnormalities 
were “not known or considered at the time of psychological 
evaluation,” with an appropriate Category II rating, Department 
of Veteran Affairs (DVA) diagnostic code of ICD-9 and be found in 
the line of duty. 

 

2. The diagnosis of “Nonspecific Brain MRI Abnormalities” 
be added with a by-line that states “Organic Medical disorder not 
known or considered at the time of psychological evaluation.” 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) recommended her for 
retirement for her condition of depression; however the PEB, 
along with all of her treating physicians and psychiatrists were 
unaware she had the CMV infection. According to “good 
psychiatric standards of care,” a psychiatric diagnosis should 
not be made without first ensuring there is not an organic 
medical diagnosis to explain the symptoms. She sustained brain 
injury and financial and social loss due to this failure to 
diagnose. 

 

2. The CMV viral infection must have been present in her body 
for at least four weeks in order to produce the acute antibody 
(IgM) response seen in her November 2010 laboratory results. It 
was negligence in the coordination of her care that led to the 
misdiagnosis of depression rather than CMV as the reason for her 
fatigue, pain, and supposed abnormal affect. In support of her 
appeal, the applicant provides copies of a physician’s 
statements, CMV information sheets, medical records, an excerpt 


of a phone bill, a Delaware family court custody petition, and a 
Letter of Counseling. 

 

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 in the grade of major (O-4). On 15 January 2010, the 
Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) diagnosed the applicant with Major 
Depressive Disorder (MDD), Recurrent, Severe with Psychotic 
Features; and, referred her case to the Informal Physical 
Evaluation Board (IPEB). On 4 May 2010, the IPEB diagnosed the 
applicant with a Category I Condition of MDD Recurrent, Severe 
with Psychotic Features, which was unfitting, compensable and 
ratable; a Category II Condition of Post Traumatic Stress 
Disorder (PTSD), that could be unfitting, but which was not 
compensable or ratable; and a Category III Condition of Paranoid 
Personality Disorder that was not separately unfitting and not 
compensable or ratable. The IPEB found her conditions were 
permanent, incurred in the line of duty while entitled to receive 
basic pay; and, recommended she be permanently retired with a 
30 percent compensable disability rating. On 10 May 2010, the 
applicant disagreed with the IPEB’s findings and recommendation, 
and requested a formal hearing of her case. On 1 July 2010, the 
Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) agreed with the IPEB 
findings and recommendations. On 19 July 2010, the applicant 
disagreed with the FPEB’s findings and recommendation and, 
requested her case be referred to the Secretary of the Air Force 
Personnel Council (SAFPC) for final review. On 4 April 2011, 
SAFPC agreed with the previous board’s findings and 
recommendations to permanently retire the applicant with a 
disability rating of 30 percent. 

 

Effective 23 June 2011, the applicant was relieved from active 
duty and retired effective 24 June 2011 in the grade of major, in 
accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-3212, with a compensable 
percentage for physical disability of 30 percent. The applicant 
served 10 years, 10 months and 25 days on active duty. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSD (USAF Physical Disability Division) recommends denial. 
DPSD states that a positive diagnosis of CMV antibody alone does 
not definitely prove a causal link between CMV and the depressive 
symptoms which rendered the applicant unfit for duty. Further, 
regardless of the underlying cause of her condition, the 
applicant was found unfit based on the functional impact of 
depression on her ability for continued military service. The 
diagnosis of depression does not rely on or require tests to 


identify specific causal factors. This diagnosis was based on 
existing symptoms and depressive mood which had been present for 
years and had responded to standard treatment of anti-depressant 
medications. 

 

The complete DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Per the Air Force board and her current and former treating and 
forensic psychiatrists, she does not have a diagnosis of any 
psychotic or delusional disorder. She suffered from depression, 
from which she has miraculously recovered. 

 

The three-member physician and psychiatrist-led PEB made a 
careful decision about her condition of Major Depression, which 
included the decision to remove and not include any diagnosis of 
delusional disorder as criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical 
Manual of Mental Disorders IV. Those three physicians were not 
given the opportunity to make their decision in light of the 
radiological abnormalities. The Air Force office of primary 
responsibility and other lay persons need to recognize this. 

 

She continues to face professional career and legal (civil and 
custody) hardships related to the diagnoses which the medical 
board already struck from her record and, the depression which 
she has recovered from thanks to the excellent care from the DVA. 
She hopes the AFBCMR will be as careful and thorough as the 
previous board and DVA professionals. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 

 

2. The application was timely filed. 

 

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice. After a 
thorough review of the evidence of record, we see no evidence of 
error or impropriety in the Disability Evaluation System process 
and are not persuaded by the applicant’s contentions, that she 
has been the victim of an injustice. It appears the applicant’s 
medical case was properly evaluated under the appropriate Air 
Force regulations which implement the law. In our opinion, the 
Air Force office or primary responsibility has adequately 
addressed these allegations. Therefore, we agree with the 
opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary 


responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error 
or injustice. Accordingly, 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 issues involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2011-04826 in Executive Session on 9 August 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-04826: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Dec 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 20 Jan 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Feb 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 16 Feb 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Mar 12, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair