RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00711
      COUNSEL: NONE
	                 				HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His medical discharge with severance pay be changed to a medical 
retirement.  

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His diagnosis of Schizoid Personality Disorder was only given to 
him by one Air Force contract psychologist while undergoing a 
Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).  During the same period, he was 
diagnosed by three different private doctors as having Bipolar 
disorder.  He was prescribed medication typical for individuals 
with Bipolar Disorder.  He was subsequently denied a medical 
retirement based on this single diagnosis after 11 years of 
honorable service.  After being discharged, he received a 
service-connected disability rating of 30 percent for Bipolar 
Disorder from the Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA).  

The applicant does not provide any evidence in support of his 
appeal.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.  

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who 
served on active duty from 26 September 2000 to 23 October 2011.  

On 24 November 2009, an MEB diagnosed the applicant with 
Dysthymic Disorder and referred his case to an Informal Physical 
Evaluation board (IPEB).  On 26 May 2009, the IPEB considered 
the applicant’s case and agreed with the MEB findings.  The IPEB 
recommended the applicant be discharged with severance pay at a 
ten percent disability rating.  The applicant disagreed with the 
IPEB findings and recommendation on 12 April 2010 and requested 
a formal hearing.  

On 25 May 2010, the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) 
diagnosed the applicant with Dysthymic Disorder incurred in the 
line of duty and while entitled to receive basic pay.  The FPEB 
recommended the applicant be discharged with severance pay at a 
ten percent disability rating.  The applicant disagreed with the 
FPEB findings and recommendation and requested his case be 
forwarded to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council 
(SAFPC) for review and final decision.  

SAFPC considered the applicant’s contention for a permanent 
retirement with a disability rating of 80 percent.  Following a 
review of all the facts and evidence in the case, to include the 
testimony presented before the FPEB, the remarks by the FPEB, 
the remarks of the IPEB, the service medical record, and the 
narrative summary of the MEB, the Board concurred with the 
disposition recommended by the previous boards to discharge the 
applicant with severance pay with a disability rating of ten 
percent.  

On 20 July 2011, the Secretary of the Air Force directed the 
applicant be separated from active service for disability under 
the provisions of Title 10, United States Code (USC), Section 
1203, with severance pay computed under Section 1212 of the same 
Title.  

As a result, the applicant was released from active duty 
effective 23 October 2011 with a narrative reason for separation 
of Disability, Severance Pay, Non-Combat.  He served 11 years 
and 28 days on active duty.  

According to a DVA Rating Decision, dated 22 July 2013, the 
applicant was awarded a combined 100 percent disability rating 
for his conditions of Sleep Apnea and Asthma (50%); Irritable 
Bowel Syndrome (30%); Headaches (30%); Dysthymic Disorder 
(previously evaluated as Bipolar Disorder) (30%); Cervical 
Strain with Degenerative Disc Disease (20%), Left Shoulder, 
Status Post Arthroscopy (20%); Thoracolumbar Strain with 
Radiographic Findings of Disc Degenerative Disc Disease and 
Schmorl’s Nodes (10%); Right Knee Patellofemoral Syndrome with 
Degenerative Changes of the Patella (10%); Left Ankle Sprain and 
Degenerative Arthritis (10%); and Right Ankle Sprain (10%).  The 
applicant was diagnosed with several other conditions which were 
determined to be service-connected with a zero percent 
disability rating.  

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFD recommends denial.  DPSD states the DVA disability 
evaluation system operates under separate laws.  Under Title 10, 
United States Code (USC), Physical Evaluation Boards must 
determine if a member’s condition renders them unfit for 
continued military service relating to their office, grade, rank 
or rating.  The fact that a person may have a medical condition 
does not mean that the condition is necessarily unfitting for 
continued military service.  To be unfitting, the condition must 
be such that it alone precludes the member from fulfilling their 
military duties.  If the board renders a finding of unfit, the 
law provides appropriate compensation due to the premature 
termination of their career.  Further, it is noted the Air Force 
disability boards must rate disabilities based on the member’s 
condition at the time of evaluation; in essence a snapshot of 
their condition at that time.  It is the charge of the DVA to 
pick up where the Air Force must, by law, leave off.  Under 
Title 38, USC, the DVA may rate any service-connected condition 
based upon future employability or revaluate based on changes in 
the severity of a condition.  This often results in different 
ratings by the two agencies.  

The preponderance of evidence reflects no error or injustice 
occurred in the applicant’s disability process.  

The complete DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 22 March 2013 for review and response within 30 
days (Exhibit D).  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 timely filed.

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 Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its 
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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-00711 in Executive Sessions on 24 October 2013, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	                   , Panel Chair
	                   , Member
	                   , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-00711:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Feb 13.
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 1 May 13. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 May 13.




						                          
									Panel Chair
4

3