RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00627

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her medical discharge be changed to a medical retirement. 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her disability did not exist prior to her entering military 
service as she never received psychiatric treatment prior to her 
military service.  She has been deemed unemployable by the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 19 Jul 00, the applicant commenced her enlistment in the 
Regular Air Force.

The applicant was referred to mental health by her treatment 
manager at Family Advocacy after revealing multiple obsessive 
type behaviors.  The applicant had a substantiated Family 
Advocacy case (minor physical) for domestic assault for striking 
her husband.  She was diagnosed with Obsessive Compulsive 
Disorder, with poor insight, partner relational problems, 
Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder, Non-contributory, 
ineffective coping skills, partner relational, current Global 
Assessment of Functioning (GAF) is 55, and that her condition 
was in the Line of Duty (LOD) and that it Existed Prior to 
Service (EPTS).  Mental Health referred the applicant to a 
medical evaluation board (MEB).

On 12 Jul 01, the applicant underwent an MEB.  The MEB concurred 
with the recommendations of mental health and referred her case 
to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB).  On 31 Jul 01, 
the IPEB recommended the applicant be discharged under other 
than Chapter 61, 10 USC (EPTS).  On 3 Aug 01, the applicant did 
not concur with the findings and recommendations of the IPEB and 
requested evaluation by the Formal Physical Evaluation Board 
(FPEB).  On 28 Aug 01, the FPEB concurred with the findings and 
recommendations of the IPEB.  The applicant nonconcurred with 
the findings and recommendations of the FPEB and requested a 
review by the Secretary Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC).  On 
2 Oct 01, SAFPC directed the applicant be discharged Under Other 
Than Chapter 61, 10 USC (EPTS), not in the line of duty, EPTS 
without service aggravation.

On 19 Nov 01, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge 
with a narrative reason for separation of “Disability, Existed 
Prior to Service.”  She was credited with one year, four months, 
and one day of total active service.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFD recommends denial indicating there is no evidence 
indicating an error or injustice occurred during the disability 
process.  The Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of 
Veterans Affairs (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 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.  It is the 
charge of the DVA to pick up where the AF 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.

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 24 Feb 13, for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit D).  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.  We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; however, after a thorough review of the 
evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, we 
find no errors in the applicant’s discharge processing.  We 
further find the applicant’s medical condition was thoroughly 
reviewed in accordance with the applicable instructions and 
policy and appropriately determined to have existed prior to her 
service (EPTS) and therefore not compensable.  As a result, she 
was administratively separated for her EPTS condition.  
Furthermore, 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 its impact of the 
member’s fitness for duty and, if incurred or aggravated in the 
line of duty, compensates the member based on the degree of 
impairment that cut-short their military career.  In this case, 
however, because the applicant’s condition was not incurred or 
aggravated in the LOD, she was not eligible for disability 
compensation from the military disability evaluation system 
(DES).  The DVA, however, awards ratings for any and all 
conditions that they determine to be service-connected 
conditions, irrespective of findings of the military DES, to the 
degree they interfere with future employability and without 
consideration of fitness for military duty.  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-2012-00627 in Executive Session on 31 Oct 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Aug 12, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 4 Feb 13.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Feb 13.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair