RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-04312

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be given a 30 percent or more disability rating for her 
service-connected conditions.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was told that she was being medically boarded but was never 
rated.  She was hospitalized for 30 days in a mental hospital 
and was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and post-traumatic 
stress disorder (PTSD).  She did not finish her training as 
indicated on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or 
Discharge from Active Duty.  She spent the last few months of 
her time in service heavily medicated.  She was put on a suicide 
watch and made to see a therapist until she was discharged.  

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 Air National Guard (ANG) who enlisted on 
14 January 2004 and was separated on 13 January 2007, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-3209 Separation and Retirement Procedures 
for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members, (dated 
14 Apr 05), for Involuntary Expiration Term of Service (ETS).  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of 
the Air Force at Exhibit C.  

________________________________________________________________





AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

1.  The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The 
Medical Consultant states the applicant has not met the burden 
of proof of error or injustice that warrants the desired change 
of the record.  

2.  The applicant supplied 1600 pages of medical and military 
records to support her contentions.  The records contain a 
bountiful supply of medical history intakes, usually in the form 
of an SF93.   The medical intake specifically solicits “have you 
ever attempted suicide,” and “do you have a nervous disorder of 
any type.”  The applicant, on all available documents, 
consistently denied any such problems or events.  On 
4 September 2002, on her enlistment physical for the Air 
National Guard, again the applicant clearly denied any “suicidal 
history, nervous disorder or hospital admission,” except for 
extraction of her wisdom teeth.  The applicant in a 1999 exam, 
again, denied a history of “ever attempting suicide” and also 
states “I tend to get depressed whenever I'm away from my 
children for longer than a day.”  

3.  In reviewing the applicant's medical notes, she presents 
with a history of suicidal ideation, a suicidal attempt and 
multiple psychiatric admissions.  On 6 December 2005, the first 
presentation to the Life Skills Clinic, the applicant noted 
experiencing suicidal ideation related to multiple stressors.  
These stressors included her husband being deployed for one year 
in support of OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF) (she was fearful for 
his safety and became depressed when she thought about losing 
him), an ongoing custody battle with her first husband over her 
youngest daughter and job dissatisfaction.  The applicant stated 
that “she does not like Active Duty and would like to be 
discharged quickly.”

4.  While meeting with the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB), on 
22 December 2005, the applicant reported attempting suicide by 
overdosing with pills when she was 15 years old.  At this same 
interview the applicant stated that she was born in Liberia, 
West Africa and moved to the United States at age 9.  She 
witnessed and experienced traumatic events as a child. The 
applicant reports that she lost 2 brothers during the civil war 
in Liberia.  She reports physical abuse from her mother from 
ages 8-17 years old.  In addition she reports a history of 
numerous sexual abuses to include her mother's boyfriend, cousin 
and uncle.  The applicant also states that she was placed in 
foster care for 1-year while growing up.  On a Department of 
Veterans Affairs (DVA) evaluation the examiner notes “her PTSD 
is the result of childhood trauma and is exacerbated by her 
husband's deployments to Iraq.”  

5.  In February 2006 a Line of Duty Determination (LOD), AF Form 
348, was completed as “EPTS-Service Aggravated.”  On 
7 August 2006, the president of the USAF Physical Evaluation 
Board, requested that the ANG review the applicant's case and 
provide a final LOD for their consideration in the board, in 
view of the situation and poor quality of the LOD. “The IPEB 
found the LOD questionable and did not see sufficient evidence 
to support, that the member's medical condition was exacerbated 
by military service.  Per DODI 1332.38 Physical Processing, 
paragraph E2.1.32, service aggravation is defined as permanent 
worsening of a pre-service medical condition over and above the 
natural progression of the condition caused by trauma or the 
nature of military service.”  The MEB convened on 20 June 2006 
and found the applicant diagnosed with Bipolar Affective 
Psychoses, Psychoneuroses, “EPTS and Not Permanently Aggravated 
by Service.”  

6.  In Neuropsychological testing done by the DVA on 
24 January 2008, the attending doctor noted:  “There are several 
inconsistencies in the personal history she provided, which 
differ from historical information she has provided to other 
evaluators. The Neuropsychological assessment with the applicant 
was discontinued, following administration of tests of 
motivation indicating that she not only failed to put forth her 
best efforts, but was likely exaggerating or malingering her 
symptoms.  Specifically her profile is classified as “Type II 
Symptom Exaggerator,” it is highly unlikely that even an 
individual who sustained a severe brain injury would perform 
this poorly in the absence of exaggeration or malingering 
issues.”  The applicant's performance indicates she is likely 
deliberately provided wrong answers.  

7.  The Medical Consultant concurs with the DVA findings that 
the applicant’s PTSD is the result of “childhood trauma”.  The 
applicant noted experiencing suicidal ideation related to 
multiple “stressors” as mentioned above in the applicant’s 
interview at the Life Skills Center in December 2005.  These 
“stressors” are not particular to military service and do not 
appear to be caused by the trauma or the nature of her military 
service.  It appears that the applicant entered the military 
with a long term (chronic) condition that, at times, have had 
some very bad periods (acute exacerbations).  The medical 
consultant opines that these “stressors” were tenuously related 
to military service, and did not permanently exacerbate a pre-
existing condition.  

8.  The Medical Consultant fully concurs with the IPEB and the 
Air National Guard that the LOD determination on this applicant 
should be Line of Duty-Existed Prior to Service-Not Applicable 
(LOD-EPTS-N/A).  It should also be noted that the DVA may not be 
aware of the final LOD disposition of EPTS-N/A and acted within 
its authority to assign service-connection despite the 
acknowledgement of references to an EPTS condition and the 
possible malingering during a Compensation and Pension 
examination.  

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 5 March 2013 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit D). To date, a response has not been received.  

________________________________________________________________

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 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 BCMR 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 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 18 June 2013, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603:

				Panel Chair
				Member
				Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2012-04312:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 October 2012, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 
27 February 2013.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 5 March 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-2012-04312. 

	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

5





 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON, DC


Office of the Assistant Secretary