RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05223

					COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Department of Defense (DoD) mental health diagnosis rendered by the Disability Evaluation System (DES) be corrected to reflect that military service exacerbated her depressive symptoms. 


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The diagnosis failed to emphasize that the military service exacerbated her depressed symptoms.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 18 Nov 98. With no break in service, she was separated from the Air Force on 20 Aug 09 in the grade of staff sergeant (E-4), and was commissioned as a second lieutenant (O-1) on 21 Aug 09.  

On 7 Jun 10 the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) found the applicant’s major depressive disorder (MDD) was in early remission associated with dysthymic disorder, as existed prior to service (EPTS), under Category II (conditions that can be unfitting but are not currently compensable or ratable).  The applicant was relieved from active duty on 23 Sep 10 and placed on temporary disability retired list (TDRL) on 24 Sep 10.  

On 15 Aug 12, the applicant was removed from the TDRL and discharged in the grade of second lieutenant (O-1) by reason of physical disability per AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, and Separation, with entitlement to disability severance pay.  The applicant was credited with eleven years, ten months and six days of active service.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and E.    


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

SAF/PDBR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice regarding the applicant’s DoD mental health diagnosis rendered by the DES.  A Special Review Panel (SRP) reviewed the applicant’s records for evidence of inappropriate changes in diagnosis of the mental health condition during processing through the military DES.  The available records shows a diagnosis of MDD and dysthymic disorder were rendered.  The SRP determined that no mental health diagnoses were changed to the applicant's possible disadvantage in the disability evaluation.  Additionally, the SRP reviewed the fitness determination for the MDD condition.  Records revealed the applicant’s commander’s statement acknowledging that her condition was under control allowing for deployment taskings.  The applicant’s symptoms improved to the point that psychotherapy was no longer necessary.  Therefore, the panel concluded the mental condition was not unfitting at the time of placement on the TDRL and not subject to service disability rating.  The SRP noted the applicant’s problems following separation, however, the Military Services, by law, can only rate and compensate for those conditions that were found unfitting for continued military service based on the severity of the condition at the time of separation and not based on future changes.  

A complete copy of the SAF/PDBR evaluation is at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 8 Nov 13 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice regarding the applicant’s contention that the DoD mental health diagnosis rendered by the DES failed to emphasize that the military service exacerbated her depressed symptoms.  While the AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant acknowledged that the AF IMT 618, Medical Board Report, dated 2 Mar 10 did indicate the applicant’s MDD was permanently aggravated by military service and this was not acknowledged in future PEBs, by law, the military services can only rate and compensate for those conditions that were found unfitting for continued military service based on the severity of the condition at the time of separation.  At the time of her separation, she was described as fit and suitable for continued military service from a mental health perspective when being processed via the DES.  Additionally, her commander denied concerns related to her mental health condition and, were it not for her headaches, would have considered putting her up against a deployment tasking.  Thus, although military service may have aggravated the applicant’s depression, her mental health condition at the time of DES processing did not meet the criteria of unfitness that is required for processing a service member via DoDI 1332.18, Disability Evaluation System (DES),para 1b of appendix 3.  In contrast, service aggravation may bolster the applicant’s case for a service-connected disability when filing a claim with the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (DVA) as the DVA is able to rate and compensate all service-connected conditions without regard to their impact on performance of military duties at the time of DES processing.  

A complete copy of the AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit E.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 4 May 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F).  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.  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 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 of injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.




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-2013-05223 in Executive Session on 16 Jun 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Apr 13, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, SAF/PDBR, dated 17 Oct 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Nov 13
	Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFBCMR Clinical Psychology 
	            Consultant, dated 23 Apr 15. 
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 May 15 
.