RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03455 

 

 COUNSEL: NO 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His official records be corrected to show that: 

 

1. His Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) found him 
unfit for duty. 

 

2. He was medically retired due to Post-Traumatic Stress 
Disorder (PTSD) and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His IPEB incorrectly assumed his PTSD and OCD did not overcome 
the presumption of fitness, despite the assessments and 
observations of numerous health care professionals and his unit 
commander. For almost two years, everyone has clearly stated 
how the severity of both conditions has had a debilitating 
effect on every aspect of his social and occupational life. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant initially entered active duty on 21 Jun 82. 

 

On 29 Nov 10, the applicant was seen at the base Mental Health 
Clinic for symptoms from traumatic exposure during deployment. 

 

On 11 Jan 11, the applicant was again seen at the base Mental 
Health Clinic for deployment-related traumatic stress. He was 
assigned a Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score of 75. 

 

On 7 Nov 11, an AF Form 469, Duty-Limiting Condition Report, was 
initiated, indicating the applicant was undergoing an MEB and 
therefore not World-Wide Qualified. 

 


On 13 Mar 12, the MEB summary stated the applicant had also been 
diagnosed with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), and “will 
require ongoing mental health counseling and follow-up for the 
foreseeable future.” 

 

On 30 Mar 12, the applicant requested a six-month extension to 
his enlistment beyond his mandatory retirement date of 1 Jul 12 
for completion of his Integrated Disability Evaluation System 
(IDES) processing. 

 

On 27 Jun 12, the IPEB recommended the applicant be returned to 
duty due to his mandatory high-year of tenure date which placed 
him in a presumptive period of fitness. Thus, the applicant was 
presumed to be fit for duty based on the presumption of fitness 
rule. 

 

On 2 Jul 12, the applicant disagreed with the findings and 
recommendations of the IPEB and requested a Formal PEB. That 
request was denied because the justification he provided did not 
support further consideration. 

 

On 10 Jul 12, an MEB addendum from the applicant’s base Medical 
Health Clinic assigned him a GAF score of 44. 

 

On 31 Dec 12, the applicant was relieved from active duty and 
retired, effective 1 Jan 13, with a reason for retirement of 
“Voluntary Retirement: Maximum Service or Time In Grade,” and 
was credited with 30 years, 6 months, and 10 days of total 
active service. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of 
primary responsibility, which are included at Exhibits C and D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPFC recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice. The applicant did not submit any new 
medical evidence to support his contention that the IPEB 
incorrectly assumed his medical conditions did not overcome the 
presumption of fitness. If the hospital commander believed 
there was additional compelling medical documentation calling 
into question the appropriateness of the IPEB’s decision to 
return the applicant to duty, he/she could have requested “a 
special review” of the IPEB recommendation. There was no such 
request. No error or injustice occurred during the disability 
process or in the IPEB’s interpretation of the rule for 
overcoming presumption of fitness. 

 

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

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial, indicating 
there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The military 


Disability Evaluation System (DES), established to maintain a 
fit and vital fighting force, can by law, only offer 
compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries 
which specifically rendered a member unfit for continued active 
service and which were the cause of career termination; and then 
only for the degree of impairment present at the time of 
separation and not based on future occurrences. Physical 
Disability Evaluation, states a Service member shall be 
considered unfit when the evidence establishes that the member, 
due to physical disability, is unable to reasonably perform the 
duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating to include 
duties during a remaining period of Reserve obligation. 
Therefore, given the clinical history and documents provided, it 
is likely the applicant would have been found unfit for further 
military duty had he not entered the presumptive period when a 
Medical Evaluation Board was decided upon and subsequent 
referral to a Physical Evaluation Board took place. 

 

However, DoDI 1332.38, Physical Disability Evaluation, explains 
that Service members who are pending retirement at the time they 
are referred for physical disability evaluation enter the DES 
under a rebuttable presumption they are physically fit. The DES 
compensates disabilities when they cause or contribute to career 
termination. However, continued performance of duty until a 
Service member is approved for length or service retirement 
creates a rebuttable presumption that a Service member’s medical 
conditions have not caused career termination. Additionally, 
service members shall be considered to be pending retirement 
when the dictation of the member’s MEB occurs after any of the 
following circumstances: (1) A member’s request for voluntary 
retirement has been approved. Revocation of voluntary 
retirement orders for purposes of referral into the DES does not 
negate application of the presumption, and (2) An enlisted 
member is within 12 months of his or her retention control point 
(RCP) or expiration of active obligated service (EAOS), but will 
be eligible for retirement at his or her RCP/EAOS. Clearly, the 
dictation of the applicant’s MEB took place within the 
presumptive period of fitness. 

 

Nevertheless, the presumption of fitness can be overcome if one 
of the following applies: (1) Within the presumptive period an 
acute, grave illness or injury occurs that would prevent the 
member from performing further duty if he or she were not 
retiring, (2) Within the presumptive period a serious 
deterioration of a previously diagnosed condition, to include a 
chronic condition, occurs and the deterioration would preclude 
further duty if the member were not retiring, or (3) The 
condition for which the member is referred is a chronic 
condition and a preponderance of evidence establishes the member 
was not performing duties befitting his or her experience in the 
office, grade, rank, or rating before entering the presumptive 
period. When there has been no serious deterioration within the 
presumptive period, the ability to perform duty in the future 
shall not be a consideration. After an earnest consideration of 


the possible application of the rule of serious deterioration of 
a chronic condition or the rule applied when an individual 
clearly was not performing duties commensurate with office, 
grade, rank, or rating; the latter which the commander’s letter 
of 2012 infers; but was still confronted with the fact that it 
was the applicant’s HYT and not his PTSD or OCD that ended his 
military career. 

 

Although the applicant’s providers documented his clinical 
symptoms as early as Nov 10, they did not pursue disqualifying 
him or referring him for MEB processing until a year later. It 
is only after the applicant entered the presumptive period that 
a Duty-Limiting Condition Report was first established for him 
in Nov 11. Indeed, the applicant required an extension of his 
Jul 12 mandatory retirement date (MRD) in order to complete the 
DES processing. Finally, based upon a preponderance of 
evidence, there appears to be no error in processing of his 
case. 

 

A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s 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 22 Jan 13 for review and comment within 30 days. 
As of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit E). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility (OPR) and the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt 
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant 
has not been the victim of an error of injustice. While the 
applicant contends that his unfitting conditions should have 
formed the basis for his disability retirement, we are not 
convinced that he is the victim of an error or injustice. In 
this respect, we note the comments of the AFBCMR Medical 
Consultant indicating that while the military Disability 


Evaluation System (DES) can offer compensation for medical 
conditions which were the cause of career termination, the 
applicant’s medical conditions did not cause the termination of 
his career—the applicant served on active duty for over 30 years 
and was retired due to attaining his high year of tenure. The 
personal sacrifice the applicant endured for his country is 
noted and the recommendation to deny the requested relief in no 
way diminishes the high regard we have for his outstanding 
service. 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 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-2012-03455 in Executive Session on 21 Mar 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-03455 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Jul 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPFC, dated 2 Jan 12. 

Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 
18 Jan 13, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 22 Jan 12. 

 

 

 

 

Panel Chair