RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02514
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her narrative reason for separation be amended to reflect 
“Service Connected Disability” rather than “Adjustment 
Disorder”.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She is receiving a 50 percent disability rating from the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).

In support of the applicant’s appeal, she provides documentation 
from the DVA and a copy of her DD Form 214, Certificate of 
Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

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

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 June 2009.

A command directed Report of Behavior Health Evaluation dated 
14 July 2011, shows the applicant was issued an Axis I diagnosis 
of Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood and an Axis II 
diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder.  The report 
reflects - The applicant did not have a severe mental disorder 
and was not considered mentally disordered.  However, the 
applicant manifested a long-standing disorder of character, 
behavior and adaptability that was of such severity so as to 
preclude further military service.  The applicant presented with 
personality traits that interfered with her ability to work in a 
theatre of operations.

The applicant was notified by her commander of his intent to 
recommend her discharge from the Air Force under the provisions 
of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208.  The specific reason was based on 
the applicant being diagnosed with a mental disorder.  She was 
diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood.  This 
disorder was so severe that it precluded further military 
service.

She was advised of her rights in this matter and after 
consulting with counsel she elected to submit a statement on her 
own behalf.  In a legal review of the case file, the assistant 
staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and 
recommended discharge.  The discharge authority concurred with 
the recommendation and directed an honorable discharge.  The 
applicant was discharged on 17 October 2011.  She served 2 
years, 4 months and 16 days on active duty.

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial.  DPSOS states they are pleased the 
applicant is apparently succeeding and coping well in her 
civilian capacity, however, it does not change the basis for 
which she was discharged from the Air Force.  The military 
environment is unique and stressors encountered in such an 
environment may not appear or surface when removed from the 
military environment.

The administrative discharge package clearly indicates the 
applicant was counseled on numerous occasions regarding her 
conduct and was afforded an opportunity to meet Air Force 
standards prior to the initiation of her discharge.

Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel 
records, the discharge to include the narrative reason for 
separation and separation code was consistent with the 
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge 
instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge 
authority.  There exists no evidence of an error or injustice in 
the processing of the applicant’s discharge.

The DPSOS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The AFBCMR 
Medical Consultant states the applicant supplied evidence from 
the DVA reflecting the granting of “service connection for the 
same principal diagnosis made by the Military Department, 
Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Depressed Mood” and 
assigned an evaluation of 50 percent effective 18 October 2011.

Neither the compensation and pension medical assessment [nor the 
date of evaluation] conducted by the DVA nor any related service 
or post-service clinical assessments are supplied for an 
independent analysis of the rationale for the diagnosis and the 
rationale for the award of compensation, e.g., whether the 
diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder was considered acute or whether 
it was considered chronic at the point of evaluation by the DVA.  
This diagnostic distinction is not supplied in the current 
documentation.

Adjustment Disorder has been listed in the Air Force and 
Department of Defense policies as a medical condition not 
considered a compensable disability by the military Disability 
Evaluation System (DES).  Although a recent revision of DoD 
policy [April 2013] now acknowledges that an individual with a 
chronic Adjustment Disorder renders the individual eligible for 
processing via a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB), the acute 
Adjustment Disorder [that is a diagnosis initially made based 
upon an identifiable stressor, usually lasting no more than six 
months] continues to be held as non-compensable and non-ratable 
by the military departments.  When it has been determined that 
an acute Adjustment Disorder is so severe as to significantly 
interfere with an individual’s ability to perform military 
service, the member is vulnerable for an involuntary discharge, 
under authority of AFI 36-3208

Therefore, even though the DVA has granted compensation for the 
applicant’s medical condition, this evidence does not invalidate 
the appropriateness of the military discharge disposition, which 
was based upon the diagnostic distinction present at the “snap 
shot” time of the applicant’s release from military service; 
notwithstanding the fact that the applicant’s disability rating 
was made effective the day after her release from military 
service.

Finally, for awareness, the DVA is authorized, under Title 
38 United States Code, to offer compensation for any medical 
condition with a nexus with military service, without regard its 
proven impact upon a former service member’s fitness to serve, 
the narrative reason for release from service, or the duration 
of time passed since separation.  This is the reason why an 
individual may be released from service for one reason and later 
receive a compensation rating for one or more medical conditions 
that were not considered militarily unfitting or eligible for 
military disability processing at the time of military service.  
The DVA is also empowered to conduct periodic re-evaluations for 
the purpose of adjusting the disability rating determinations 
(increase or decrease) as the level of impairment from a given 
medical condition may vary (worsen or improve) over the lifetime 
of the veteran.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at 
Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________
_






APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

On 24 October 2013, copies of the Air Force evaluations were 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 
30 days (Exhibit E).  As of this date, no response has been 
received by this office. 

________________________________________________________________
_

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.  After a 
thorough review of the evidence of record, it is our opinion 
that given the circumstances surrounding her separation from the 
Air Force, the narrative reason for separation assigned was 
proper and in compliance with the appropriate instructions.  In 
addition, the applicant has not provided any evidence which 
would lead us to believe otherwise.  Therefore, we agree with 
the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has 
not been the victim of an error or injustice.  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 an 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-2013-02514 in Executive Session on 18 February 2014, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 June 2013, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Available Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 26 September 2013.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, 
               dated 22 October 2013.
   Exhibit E.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 October 2013.





4


5