RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03399 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. Her administrative discharge be changed to a medical 
retirement and she be awarded full benefits. 

 

2. Her narrative reason for separation, as reflected on her DD 
Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, 
be changed from Adjustment Disorder to Post Traumatic Stress 
Disorder (PTSD). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

Her diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder was an error because she 
was a productive airman until diagnosed with PTSD while on 
active duty. The psychologist made a biased decision and lied 
to cover-up his initial diagnosis because she attempted suicide 
again later that evening after meeting with him. Since the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) issued her a 70 percent 
compensable disability rating associated with her PTSD, she 
should have received a medical evaluation board (MEB) and be 
medically retired instead of receiving an administrative 
discharge. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 11 January 
2005. 

 

On 27 August 2007, the applicant was notified of her commander’s 
intent to recommend she be discharged from the Air Force for 
conditions that interfered with military service: Mental 
Disorders – Adjustment Disorder. 

 

On 27 August 2007, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
notification of discharge and after consulting with counsel, 
waived her rights to submit a statement on her own behalf. 


 

On 28 August 2007, the applicant’s commander approved her 
administrative separation under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, by reason of conditions 
that significantly interfere with her ability to function within 
a military environment: Mental Disorders – Adjustment Disorder. 

 

On 28 August 2007, the Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case 
and found it legally sufficient to support discharge and 
recommended that she receive a honorable discharge without 
probation and rehabilitation. 

 

On 31 August 2007, the applicant was honorably discharged with a 
narrative reason for separation of Adjustment Disorder and was 
credited with 2 years, 7 months, and 20 days. 

 

On 9 March 2009, according to documentation provided by the 
applicant, the DVA notified the applicant of their determination 
that her PTSD with major depressive disorder was service 
connected and she was granted a combined compensable disability 
rating of 70 percent. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application is 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C and Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice. Based on the documentation on file in 
the master personnel records, the discharge to include the 
narrative reason for separation was appropriately administered 
and within the discretion of the discharge authority. 

 

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

 

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating the 
applicant’s failure to completely disclose relevant mental 
health history prior to enlistment, which would have been 
disqualifying, renders her request for a medical retirement due 
to PTSD unwarranted. The applicant’s past mental health history 
contains a plethora of both ambulatory and inpatient visits for 
multiple mental health conditions, including but not limited to, 
alcohol dependence, adjustment disorder, PTSD [chronic], 
personality disorder and suicide attempts. The applicant was 
evaluated by a clinical psychologist who recommended 
administrative separation resulting from a longstanding disorder 
of character, behavior, and adaptability so severe that her 
ability to function effectively in the military environment was 
significantly impaired. A significant discrepancy exists 
between the information submitted with this application and the 
applicant’s medical records. The denial of previous suicide 


attempts on the applicant’s pre-enlistment questionnaire in 2004 
differs markedly from the information provided after entry in 
the military, which documents “yearly” suicide attempts in the 
applicant’s childhood. This discrepancy may represent a 
fraudulent non-disclosure of a significant preexisting mental 
health condition that would have been disqualifying for entry 
into military service. The recurrence of the applicant’s 
maladaptive pattern of behavior is more consistent with the 
expected [already demonstrated] natural progression of a pre-
existing mental deficiency. There is some documentation in the 
record which indicates chronic PTSD as a co-morbid diagnosis, 
alongside other mental conditions, and noted that the Department 
of Veterans Affairs (DVA) has established service connection for 
her mental health condition. However, based upon a 
preponderance of evidence, the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder 
with Depressed Mood which was the mental health diagnosis that 
rendered her unsuited for continued military service is not 
negated by the DVA’s decision to service connect chronic PTSD. 
The military Disability Evaluation System (DES), established to 
maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law, under Title 
10, Untied States Code (U.S.C.) only offer compensation for 
those service incurred diseases or injuries which specifically 
rendered a member unfit for continued active service and were 
the cause for career termination; and then only for the degree 
of impairment present at the time of separation and not based on 
future occurrences. 

 

The applicant should be aware that the DVA operates under a 
different set of laws and is authorized to offer compensation 
for any medical condition for which it establishes a nexus with 
military service, without regard to its proven or demonstrated 
impact upon a service, nor the intervening period since release 
from service. 

 

A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation, 
with attachments, is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 17 January 2013, for review and comment within 30 
days (Exhibit E). As of this date, this office has received no 
response. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the AFBCMR 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. 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 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-2012-03399 in Executive Session on 14 May 2013, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Jul 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 19 Sep 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, 

 dated 15 Jan 13, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jan 13. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair