RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-05354
		
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

 ________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1. His diagnosis of anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic 
stress disorder (PTSD) be included in the list of unfitting 
conditions described on his AF IMT Form 618, Medical Board 
Report, and the AF Form 356, Recommended Findings and 
Disposition of Informal or Formal Physical Evaluation Board.

2. His PTSD diagnosis be designated as a combat-related illness.

3. His disability rating with the Department of Defense (DoD) be 
changed from 20 percent to 100 percent and, as a result, his 
records be corrected to reflect he was permanently retired for 
physical disability instead of being discharged with entitlement 
to severance pay.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was misled by his Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Officer 
(PEBLO) to believe that he could only put one condition on his 
Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Report for review.  According to 
his narrative summary, the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (DVA) 
retroactively upgraded his diagnosis of anxiety and depression 
to PTSD since his date of separation (DOS).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted 
in the Regular Air Force on 26 Feb 02.

On 16 Sep 05, the applicant was honorably discharged with a 
narrative reason for separation of “Disability with Severance 
Pay” and was credited with 3 years, 6 months, and 21 days of 
total active service.

According to information provided by the applicant, on 16 Mar 
06, the DVA evaluated the applicant’s diagnosis of dysthymia 
with anxious and granted him a 30 percent disability rating.  On 
9 Oct 08, the DVA reevaluated the applicant’s claim and 
retroactively upgraded his diagnosis of anxious mood to PTSD and 
increased the disability rating to 70 percent.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force, which are at Exhibits C and F.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFD recommends denial indicating there was no evidence of 
an error or injustice that occurred during the disability 
process or at the time of separation.  

The applicant’s military personnel records indicated that the 
Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) did not consider the 
applicant for PTSD and his exception letter only described all 
the back pain experienced during his time in the military.  The 
applicant concurred with the recommendation of the board, and on 
16 Sep 05, was honorably discharged from the Air Force.

The DoD and DVA disability evaluation systems operate under 
separate laws.  Title 10 USC states that Physical Evaluation 
Boards (PEB) determine if a member’s condition renders them 
unfit for continued military service.  A diagnosed medical 
condition does not necessarily mean that the condition is 
unfitting for continued military service.  To be unfitting, the 
condition alone must preclude the member from fulfilling their 
military duties.  The USAF disability boards must rate 
disabilities based on the member’s condition at the time of 
evaluation.  The DVA picks up where the AF must, by law, leave 
off.  Under Title 38 USC, the DVA determines and reevaluate 
service-connected conditions.  Often times, the results are 
different ratings by the two agencies.

The applicant had an opportunity to appeal for a Formal Physical 
Evaluation Board and appeal their findings to the Secretary of 
the Air Force Personnel Council, but chose not to exercise 
either of those rights.

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

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

In accordance with Title 38, Code for Federal Regulations (CFR), 
Section 4.13, repercussions should be kept in mind when 
considering changing a current service connection rating.  When 
any change in evaluation is to be made, there should be an 
assurance that there has been a change in the conditions, for 
better or worse.

According to 38 CFR, Section 4.125, as it pertains to mental 
disorders, if the diagnosis does not conform to DSM-IV or is not 
supported by the findings on the examination report, it shall be 
returned to the examiner for substantiation.  Also, if the 
diagnosis is changed, the rating agency shall determine whether 
the new diagnosis represents progression, correction of an 
error, or development of a new and separate condition.  If it is 
not clear, it shall be returned to the examiner for a 
determination.  No evidence or proof has been provided to 
determine that the applicant’s diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder 
was an error or the newly diagnosed PSTD should have been the 
correct diagnosis. 

The fact that the applicant was given a different diagnosis by 
the DVA provider is insufficient to invalidate the conclusions 
reached by competent military mental health authorities at the 
time of his military service.

Military medical officials have been recently reminded that a 
“Chronic” Adjustment Disorder (lasting more than six months) is 
a compensable medical condition under the Veterans Affairs 
Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) and may warrant MEB 
processing, if it is the cause for career termination.  The 
evidence presented does not reflect the applicant’s Adjustment 
Disorder was chronic or an independent cause for career 
termination.

A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is 
at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reiterates that he was misled by his PEBLO that he 
could only list one condition on his MEB Report and that was his 
lower back pain.  He was hesitant but decided to trust her and 
followed her instructions.  He contends that his diagnosis of 
“moderate” Dysthymia with Anxious Mood on 15 Sep 05, was 
borderline serious and if he put the symptoms on his MEB, he 
would have obtained the proper diagnosis and counseling from the 
military psychologist and psychiatrist.  Additionally, his 
condition was documented in the VA report as 30 percent 
disabling, the day after his discharge.  On 20 Oct 08, the VA 
found that his diagnosis of PTSD with Dysthymia and Anxious Mood 
was disabling and prorated his disability compensation back to 
17 Sep 05, the day after his discharge from the military.  His 
case should have been denied or sent back for a review of the 
mental impact on his job.  All he is requesting at the very 
least is 30 percent, recognized service in the form of a 
sensible retirement, health insurance for his nine year old son 
and wife, who is a cancer survivor and need regular checkups, 
and the ability to proudly state that he sacrificed himself and 
his body for his country instead of just a VA identification 
card.

The applicant provided a signed statement from his ex-wife, 
dated 14 Apr 08 indicating, she was married to the applicant 
from 22 Dec 03 to 21 Sep 07.  She stated that she noticed a 
change in the applicant’s personality when he returned from his 
deployment to Pakistan.  She indicated that he was more 
withdrawn, and at times would struggle with low self-esteem, 
depression, and anxiety.  She didn’t see these extremes before 
his deployment.  He talked more in his sleep and was very 
restless.  His symptoms continued to worsen when they moved to 
New Jersey.  When they left McGuire AFB, NJ, the applicant had a 
stable job and was able to somewhat manage his depression and 
anxiety.  However, his symptoms worsened toward the end of 2006.  
He was complaining of trouble sleeping, focusing, concentration 
problems, nightmares, and anger and frustration issues.  This 
eventually led to them deciding on divorce.  When she met the 
applicant, he was a good guy with an even temperament.  She 
definitely witnessed a huge psychological change in him after 
his deployment to Pakistan.

__________________________________________________________________

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 offices of primary 
responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for 
our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error 
or injustice.  The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; 
however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, 
sufficiently persuasive to override the evidence of record or 
the rationale provided by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and 
other pertinent advisory.  We are not persuaded by the evidence 
that the applicant’s diagnosis of PTSD warrants a change in his 
disability rating, consideration for the permanent disability 
retired list or designated as a combat-related injury.  
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-2012-05354 in Executive Session on 25 Jun 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	             , Panel Chair
	             , Member
	             , Member

Although         chaired the panel, in view of her 
unavailability,     has signed as Acting Panel Chair.  The 
following documentary evidence was considered:

	 Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Aug 13, w/atchs.
	 Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	 Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 19 Feb 13.
	 Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Feb 13.
	 Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 12 Aug 13.
	 Exhibit F.  Letter, BMCR Medical Consultant, dated 12 Aug 13.
	 Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Aug 13, w/atchs.




                                   
                                   Acting Panel Chair




5