RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02094
                        COUNSEL:   
	  		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her discharge be changed to a medical retirement.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She should have been medically retired due to the type and 
degree of her disabilities.  Her disabilities were incorrectly 
rated and the reason for separation was an incorrect diagnosis 
per the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) examination.    

In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of her 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, DVA rating decision and extracts from her military 
personnel records.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 14 Jun 2000, the applicant entered active duty.

On 24 Feb 2009, she was diagnosed with a barbiturate, opioid and 
nicotine dependence, Substance Induced Mood Disorder (SIMD) and 
an adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions.  She 
was deemed unsuitable for continued military service and 
recommended for discharge.   

On 2 Sep 2009, the applicant’s commander notified her that he 
was initiating action to discharge her from the Air Force for 
conditions that interfere with military service, mental 
disorders, specifically adjustment disorders In Accordance With 
(IAW) Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3208, Administrative 
Separation of Airmen.  

On 15 Sep 2009, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
discharge, was afforded the opportunity to consult military 
counsel and to submit statements in her own behalf.  The 
applicant waived her right to a hearing and acknowledged she 
understood that the separation authority would determine the 
type of discharge issued to her.

On 17 Sep 2009, the staff judge advocate found the 
recommendation for discharge legally sufficient.    

On 23 Sep 2009, the recommendation for discharge was approved by 
the discharge authority.

On 27 Oct 2009, the applicant was discharged with an honorable 
characterization of service and narrative reason for separation 
of “Adjustment Disorder.”

The applicant served 9 years, 4 months and 14 days on active 
duty.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  A review of the applicant’s 
master personnel records reflect the discharge, to include the 
narrative reason for separation and type of separation, was 
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of 
the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the 
discharge authority.  The applicant was referred for a routine 
Commander Directed Mental Health Evaluation (CDE), subsequent to 
concerns about her work function, substance abuse/dependence and 
overall suitability for military service.  Her adjustment 
disorder complicated by her personality disorder was 
sufficiently severe that the applicant’s ability to function in 
the Air Force environment was significantly impaired and 
interfered with her performance of duty.  She was considered at 
risk for worsening symptoms in the context of further military 
service and was recommended for discharge.  There was no 
evidence of an error or injustice in the discharge processing.  

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.  
 
DPFD recommends denial.  The preponderance of evidence reflects 
that the Physical Disability Division never received a referral 
to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and, therefore, could not 
have given the member a medical retirement/separation.  

The complete DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  Based upon the 
supplied medical evidence, there were no medical conditions that 
established a cause and effect relationship with the termination 
of the applicant’s service or an alternative reason for her 
release from military service.  Although the applicant was 
evaluated and treated for episodic illnesses during her service, 
none were shown to have interfered with her military service to 
the extent or duration that warranted placement on medical hold 
for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and processing through the 
Disability Evaluation System (DES).  The applicant was 
administratively separated from the Air Force and was awarded 
$14,957.04 in separation pay after a commander directed mental 
health evaluation was performed and she was deemed unsuitable 
for continued military service.  Although the applicant’s 
medical records document a history of migraine headaches, it was 
not an unfitting condition.  Additionally, her depressive 
disorder was addressed per her Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention 
and Treatment (ADAPT) records which states that her physical 
presentation improved since discontinuing narcotics, tapering 
off of the barbiturate, and an overall decrease in occupational 
and family stress. Addressing the applicant’s implicit desire 
for a medical retirement, the military DES, established to 
maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law, under Title 
10, United States Code (U.S.C.), only offer compensation for 
those service incurred diseases or injuries which specifically 
rendered a member unfit for continued active service and were 
the cause for career termination; and then only for the degree 
of impairment present at the time of separation and not based on 
future occurrences.  On the other hand, operating under a 
different set of laws, Title 38, U.S.C., which governs the DVA 
compensation system, was written to allow awarding compensation 
ratings for any condition with a nexus with military service. 
The DVA is chartered to offer compensation and care to all 
eligible veterans for any service-connected disease or injury 
without regard to whether it was unfitting for continued 
military service.  Thus the two systems represent a continuum of 
medical care and disability compensation that starts with entry 
on active duty and extends for the life of the veteran.   The 
applicant has not met the burden of proof of error or injustice 
that warrants the desired change of the record.  

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 20 Aug 2013 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit F).  As of this date, this office has not received a 
response.   

________________________________________________________________

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 an error or an 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 the rationale expressed as the 
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the 
victim of an error or injustice.  In view of the above and in 
the absence of persuasive 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-2013-02094 in Executive Session on 11 Feb 2014, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
     
 	 , Panel Chair
         , Member
         , Member
  
The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Apr 2013, w/atchs.
Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 9 Jul 2013. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 19 Jul 2013.   
Exhibit E.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 14 Aug 2013.
Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 20 Aug 2013.  



		
       
      Panel Chair