RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-01905

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reason for separation on her DD Form 214, 
Certificate of Discharge or Release from Active Duty, be changed 
from adjustment disorder to medical.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was recently diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder 
(PTSD) by her local Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and 
Central Virginia Community Services offices.  She was never 
tested for PTSD while she was in the Air Force.  She has been 
wearing adult diapers ever since her gallbladder surgery in 
2009.  She has memory problems, tendonitis, patella femoral 
syndrome, residual gallbladder problems and shoulders that 
dislocate.  She cannot lift, stoop, walk or squat for periods of 
time without pain.  These are the reasons why she is requesting 
a change in the reason for her separation.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to copies of documents extracted from the Automated 
Records Management System (ARMS), the applicant is a former 
member of the Regular Air Force who enlisted on 19 May 2009.  

1.  On 18 October 2010 the applicant was notified by her 
commander that he was recommending her for discharge from the 
Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 Administrative 
Separation of Airmen, (dated 9 Jul 04 incorporating through 
change 5, dated 14 Sep 10) paragraph 5.11.9., Mental Disorders.  
The specific reason for this action was that on or about 
4 October 2010, the applicant was diagnosed with adjustment and 
personality disorders.  A clinical psychologist’s evaluation 
indicated that her inappropriate behavior was likely to recur 
and her long term prognosis was poor.  Additionally the 
psychologist determined that her diagnosed disorders were so 
severe that her ability to function in a military environment 
was significantly impaired and recommended administrative 
separation from the Air Force.  

2.  The commander also considered the following information 
while making a recommendation for discharge:  On or about 16 
August 2010, the applicant failed to type her hand written 
training notes for review as instructed.  As a result, she 
received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) dated 16 August 2010.  

3.  On 18 October 2010, the applicant acknowledged receipt of 
the notification of discharge and was advised of her right to 
consult counsel and submit statements on her own behalf.  On 
21 October 2010, she opted to consult counsel as well as submit 
a statement on her own behalf.  

4.  Subsequent to the file being found legally sufficient the 
discharge authority approved the recommendation and directed 
that the applicant be separated with an honorable discharge 
without probation and rehabilitation.  On 10 November 2010, the 
applicant was released from active duty with an honorable 
characterization of service, a separation code of “JFY” and a 
narrative reason for separation of “Adjustment Disorder.”  She 
was credited with 1 year, 5 months and 22 days of active duty 
service.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

1.  The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The 
Medical Consultant states the mental health assessment by the 
Chief of Psychological Services dated 4 October 2010, clearly 
documents the existence of an adjustment disorder.  In the 
report, the psychologist details historical behavior patterns 
consistent with the Axis I diagnosis of adjustment disorder with 
disturbance of emotions and conduct.  Even so, the mental health 
assessment specifically states, the applicant has no medical 
condition that would warrant referral to a Medical Evaluation 
Board (MEB).  

2.  A review of the 26 January 2012, DVA rating indicated the 
assignment of 10 percent service connection for adjustment 
disorder with disturbance of emotions and notes no justification 
for a higher rating or impairment determination.  A global 
assessment of functioning (GAF) score of 65 was assigned 
indicating mild symptoms with some difficulty with social and 
occupational functioning.

3.  A review of the applicant’s ambulatory medical and mental 
health records indicated no presence of PTSD despite numerous 
mental health encounters which occurred during the applicant’s 
period of service.  Therefore, even if mild symptoms of the 
disease were present, it would not be considered unfitting or 
disqualifying for service.

4.  Although the DVA assigned a disability rating for adjustment 
disorder, under current Department of Defense and Air Force 
Policies, such a disorder is not considered a compensable 
disability; and thus resulted in administrative discharge.  On 
the other hand, operating under a different set of laws, Title 
38 United States Code (U.S.C.), with a different purpose, the 
DVA is authorized to offer compensation for any medical 
condition determined service incurred, without regard to and 
independent of its individual proven impact upon a service 
member’s fitness for continued service or narrative reason for 
release from military service.  With this is mind, Title 38, 
U.S.C., which governs the DVA compensation system, was written 
to allow award of compensation ratings for conditions with a 
nexus with military service.  This is the reason why an 
individual can be found fit for release from active military 
service and yet sometime thereafter receive a compensation 
rating from the DVA for a condition found to be service-
connected, but which was not proven militarily unfitting during 
the period of active service.  

5.  The BCMR Medical Consultant concludes, based on the review 
of medical documentation provided, that no unfitting conditions 
existed at the time of separation and no MEB was justified.  
Therefore, the BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the 
applicant’s request for a change in the reason for separation 
from an adjustment disorder to a medical diagnosis.  

The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant 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 8 January 2013 for review and comment within 
30 days (Exhibit D). To date, this office has not received a 
response.  

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was timely.  

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; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice 
that occurred during the discharge process.  Based on the 
available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was 
consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge 
regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority.  
The applicant has provided no evidence, which would lead us to 
believe the narrative reason for separation was contrary to the 
provisions of the governing regulation.  We note the applicant’s 
contention that her PTSD, memory problems, tendonitis, patella 
femoral syndrome, residual gallbladder problems and shoulders 
that dislocate are reasons why her narrative reason for 
separation should be reflected as medical.  However, the 
applicant has not provided evidence to establish these 
conditions were unfitting at the time of her separation.  Based 
on the above comments, we agree with the BCMR Medical 
Consultant’s assessment that the applicant has not been the 
victim of an error or injustice.  Accordingly, the applicant’s 
request is not favorably considered.  

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 issue 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 this application 
in Executive Session on 4 April 2013, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603:

			, Panel Chair
      , Member
			, Member



The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2012-01905:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 April 2012, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 
7 January 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 8 January 2013.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR
1500 West Perimeter Road, Suite 3700
Joint Base Andrews NAF Washington, MD 20762




Dear:

	Reference your application submitted under the provisions of AFI 36-2603 (Section 1552, 
10 USC), AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-01905. 

	After careful consideration of your application and military records, the Board determined 
that the evidence you presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice.  
Accordingly, the Board denied your application.

	You have the right to submit newly discovered relevant evidence for consideration by the 
Board.  In the absence of such additional evidence, a further review of your application is not 
possible.

	BY DIRECTION OF THE PANEL CHAIR




				                                   
				                                   Chief Examiner
				                                   Air Force Board for Correction
				                                   of Military Records

Attachment:
Record of Board Proceedings


2




 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON, DC


Office of the Assistant Secretary