RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-01766
      COUNSEL:                   
	                  				HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

She be medically retired due to severely exacerbated Traumatic 
Brain Injury (TBI).  

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She did not have a mental disorder, but rather Frontal Brain 
Damage that was “exacerbated” by her time at Malmstrom Air Force 
Base (AFB), Montana.  Her Line of Duty (LOD) determination was 
improper because her commander signed off on her discharge 
before the LOD investigation was complete.  She continued to 
have physical trauma to her brain by her continuation of 
skydiving, which was approved by her health care providers and 
later revoked due to patient safety/re-injury concerns.  

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides personal 
statements from her and her husband; and, a plethora of military 
records, medical documentation, and communications. 

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

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active service on 9 February 2009 and was 
involuntarily discharged on 5 June 2011 with a general (under 
honorable conditions) service characterization, under the 
provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-3208, by reason of 
Fraudulent Entry.  She had previous service in the Air Force and 
Army National Guard and Air Force Reserve.  

On 30 December 2006, the applicant suffered a severe head injury 
while skydiving.  At the time of the injury, she was serving in 
the Air Force Reserve, but was not on orders or travel status.  
An LOD determination for her TBI was initiated on 10 September 
2010.  Her condition was found to be “Existed Prior to Service 
(EPTS) – LOD Not Applicable.”  On 13 April 2011, the applicant 
submitted evidence to support service aggravation of her 
condition; caused by stress and frustration that she suffered 
due to a hostile work environment and mistreatment by her 
supervisors, which aggravated her injury.  As a result, her 
commander initiated an investigation by appointing an 
Investigating Officer (IO).  The IO concluded his investigation 
on 19 May 2011, finding the applicant’s condition as “Not in the 
Line of Duty (NILOD) – Not Due to Own Misconduct.”  The 
Appointing Authority and Reviewing/Approving Authority agreed 
with the IO’s findings and the LOD was finalized.  

On 15 October 2012, a majority of the Air Force Discharge Review 
Board (AFDRB) found the applicant’s discharge was inconsistent 
with the procedural and substantive requirements of the 
discharge regulation and found the applicant was not provided 
full administrative due process.  As a result, the AFDRB 
directed the applicant’s discharge characterization be upgraded 
to honorable, and her reason for discharge be reflected as 
“Secretarial Authority,” and her reentry code as “3K.”  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant at 
Exhibits C and D.  

________________________________________________________________
_

BCMR MEDICAL CONSULTANT EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The BCMR Medical 
Consultant states the applicant suffered a hard landing while 
participating in skydiving in December 2006 affecting her level 
of consciousness and which required emergency treatment due to 
an altered mental state (characterized as “coma” in the record).  
She did demonstrate some mental health related problems prior to 
her December 2006 skydiving accident, to include feelings of 
hurting people, resulting in a diagnosis of “Adjustment 
Disorder.”  She was promised a referral to a TBI program, but 
became distraught after learning the promise was suddenly 
revoked, resulting in an urgent referral for a mental health 
evaluation.  As a result she was diagnosed with “Adjustment 
Disorder and Personality Disorder,” the latter which was 
considered to be the “Primary Diagnosis.”  These types of 
conditions, except if chronic in the case of the Adjustment 
Disorder, are otherwise not eligible for Medical Evaluation 
Board (MEB) processing and could result in discharge under Air 
Force Instruction 36-3208 for “Unsuitability.”  The initial 
proposed reason for discharge of “Unsuitability” was rescinded 
and replaced with “Fraudulent Entry” discharge for reasons of 
failure to make certain truthful entries on her Military 
Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) documents.  

Dueling medical opinions attribute the applicant’s pattern of 
behavior to her TBI, which, in some opinions was worsened by the 
occupational stressors experienced by her at Malmstrom AFB; 
while others assert that TBI could not be worsened by stressful 
interactions, but could be a manifestation of the TBI when under 
stressful situations, which then resolves when the stressor is 
removed.  Nevertheless, all would agree that the applicant’s TBI 
and underlying personality structure existed prior to entry to 
active military service in 2009 and, for whatever reason, was 
not disclosed on her MEPS documents.  

The BCMR Medical Consultant indicates there must be a 
distinction made between the term “exacerbation,” utilized by 
some of her practitioners, and “permanent service aggravation,” 
which is required to render an individual eligible for 
disability processing for an EPTS condition; except if the 
individual has achieved at least eight years of active military 
service.  An exacerbation, or acute behavioral flare-up of a 
mental condition, when under a given stressor, does not 
automatically incur or represent a permanent worsening of the 
existing medical condition, such as chronic recurrent 
“Adjustment Disorder;” particularly where there is a significant 
evidence of this pattern of behavior demonstrated prior to 
entering active military service.  In the absence of pre-service 
neuropsychological testing and psychiatric testing, there is no 
way to objectively determine if there has been a comparative 
permanent worsening of the applicant’s (pre-active duty) 
cognitive and behavioral functioning above and beyond the 
expected natural progression or clinical expression of her 
baseline level of functioning; or the predisposition for acute 
exacerbation under certain stressors.  Nevertheless, her 
“Adjustment Disorder” has been characterized as “greater than 
six months” duration [thus chronic]; and that in one instance it 
was reported as “chronic recurring.”  Military medical official 
have been recently reminded by Department of Defense policy 
effective 10 April 2013, that a “Chronic Adjustment Disorder” is 
a compensable medical condition under the Veterans Affairs 
Schedule for Rating Disabilities and that it may warrant MEB 
processing, if found to be the cause for career termination.  
However, the policy implementation date is not retroactive.  

In order to rule in favor of the applicant, the Board would need 
to conclude that her TBI was in the line of duty (ILOD) or that 
her TBI was permanently aggravated through military service, 
that her “Chronic Adjustment Disorder” was either a de novo 
illness which first occurred during her period of active 
military service [even if organic-induced by head trauma], or 
represented permanent worsening of a pre-existing mental or 
functional impairment through military service.  The BCMR 
Medical Consultant opines the evidence is insufficient to prove 
that an error or injustice has occurred to warrant the desired 
change of the record.  

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit 
C.  



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/JA recommends denial.  JA states that despite the 
applicant’s contentions, there is no evidence that the IO, legal 
advisor, Appointing or Approving Authority were biased in any 
way towards her.  On the contrary, the IO conducted an extremely 
thorough investigation which lasted four weeks and then provided 
an eleven-page report detailing his findings.  The legal advisor 
reviewed the entire report and provided a five-page review 
concluding the investigation was conducted properly and the 
investigation was rooted in a reasonable application of the law 
to the facts.  The Appointing and Approving Authorities reviewed 
the report and legal review and agreed with the IO’s recommended 
finding of NILOD – Not Due to Own Misconduct.  

JA indicates that although the applicant claims she was denied 
the due process of appealing the LOD determination, the evidence 
supports the opposite conclusion.  On 1 June 2011, the applicant 
was given an Official Memorandum from her commander which served 
to notify her of the NIOLD finding.  Contained therein, were the 
instructions that the determination could be reconsidered if she 
notified the Approving Authority within 45 day of receipt of the 
Memorandum, of new and relevant evidence.  There is no 
requirement that an individual be on active duty to request 
reconsideration of an LOD determination.  In fact, in those 
situations where the individual has died, his/her next of kin 
are notified of the LOD determination and the right to request 
reconsideration.  The applicant did not exercise her right to 
request reconsideration.  

To obtain relief, the applicant must show by a preponderance of 
evidence some error or injustice warranting corrective action by 
the Board.  Considering all the circumstances in this case, the 
applicant’s record should not now be altered, as she has failed 
to establish an error warranting the requested relief.  

The complete JA evaluation is at Exhibit D.  

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

She would like to point-out to the Board some of the laws that 
apply to her situation.  She has Post Traumatic Stress Disorder 
(PTSD) for her Military Sexual Trauma in which the Department of 
Veteran Affairs (DVA) has already given her service connection.  
DoD has revised its guidance to the services on rating PTSD to 
adhere to the DVA rating schedule.  Service members being 
medically retired for PTSD be rated at least 50 percent 
disabled, a provision of the 2008 Defense Authorization Act.  
Guidance establishes that when a mental disorder develops on 
active duty as a result of a highly stressful event, which is 
severe enough to bring about release from active military 
service, the rating agency shall assign an evaluation of not 
less than 50 percent and schedule an examination within the six-
month period following discharge to determine whether a change 
in rating and disposition is warranted.  

The applicant’s complete rebuttal is at Exhibit H.  
________________________________________________________________
_

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 an injustice.  After 
thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the 
applicant’s contention, we find no basis to adjust her records 
to reflect a disability retirement.  We note the applicant’s 
assertion that her condition of TBI was permanently aggravated 
through military service; however, she does not provide 
sufficient evidence to prove this contention.  As indicated by 
the BCMR Medical Consultant, the applicant’s TBI and personality 
structure existed prior to entry on active duty in 2009.  In the 
absence of a pre-service neuropsychological testing and 
psychiatric testing, there is no way to objectively determine if 
there has been a comparative permanent worsening of the 
applicant’s pre-active duty cognitive and behavioral functioning 
above and beyond the expected natural progression.  Therefore, 
we agree with the opinion and recommendations of the Air Force 
office of primary responsibility and 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.  We 
note the applicant’s contention, in her rebuttal to the advisory 
opinions, that she is entitled to a disability rating of 50 
percent based on her condition of PTSD as a result of Military 
Sexual Trauma; however, after a thorough review of her military 
service records, there is no evidence found that she was 
diagnosed with PTSD as a result of Sexual Trauma or that she was 
released from active duty as a result of PTSD.  Therefore, in 
view of the above and 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-2013-01766 in Executive Sessions on 28 January 2014, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	                , Panel Chair
	                , Member
	                , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-01766:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Apr 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 7 Aug 13. 
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 7 Aug 13. 
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 8 Aug 13.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Aug 13.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Aug 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Dec 13.




						                  
									Panel Chair
6

5