RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00281
	 	COUNSEL: NONE
			HEARING DESIRED: YES


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was discharged from the Air Force with a 10 percent service 
connected disability and should have been medically retired with 
a disability rating of 30 percent or more.  He experienced a 
loss of concentration and symptoms of narcolepsy; however, due 
to the absence of seizures and mynoclonus [sic] medical 
professionals did not explore this condition; therefore 
narcolepsy was not included on his AF Form 356, Findings and 
Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board.  
Instead he was diagnosed with depression and anxiety and because 
they were controlled with medication his conditions were 
determined to be 10 percent disabling and he was found unfit for 
continued service.  The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) 
determined that the initial onset of his diagnosed narcolepsy 
likely began during his service in the Air Force.

The applicant provides no rationale as to why his failure to 
timely file should be waived in the interest of justice.

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
Air Traffic Control Specialist (ATCS) Certificate Withdrawal 
memorandum and related documentation, AF Form 356, AF Form 100, 
Request and Authorization for Separation; electronic 
communiqués, memorandums and various other documents related to 
his request.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

In a memorandum dated 7 October 2009, the Chief, Aerospace 
Medicine informed the applicant’s commander, that the applicant 
was found medically disqualified for ATC duties.  Since his 
medical condition was not disqualifying for worldwide duty or 
deployment status, he recommended the applicant be trained into 
another career field.

In a memorandum dated 7 October 2009, the applicant was informed 
that he was medically “Disqualified for ATC” effective 
8 September 2009.

A Medical Evaluation Board convened on 16 April 2010, and 
recommended the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) 
consider the following conditions incurred while the applicant 
was entitled to basic pay; anxiety disorder, Not Otherwise 
Specified (NOS) and depressive disorder, NOS.

According to an AF Form 356 dated 12 July 2010, the IPEB found 
the applicant unfit based on his diagnoses of anxiety disorder, 
NOS and depressive disorder, NOS.  The IPEB recommended he be 
discharged with a 10 percent disability rating and severance 
pay.

According to an AF Form 1180, Action on Informal Physical 
Evaluation Board Findings and Recommended Disposition, on 
19 July 2010, the applicant agreed with the findings of the IPEB 
and waived his right to a formal PEB hearing.

According to AFPC/DPSDD memorandum dated 23 July 2010, the 
Secretary of the Air Force directed the applicant be separated 
from active service for physical disability under the provisions 
of Title 10 United States Code (USC) § 1203, with severance pay.

According to his DD Form 214 issued in conjunction with his 
23 August 2010 separation, the applicant was honorably 
discharged with a narrative reason for separation of 
“Disability, Severance Pay.”  He had 11 years, 10 months and 
10 days of active duty.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFD recommends denial.  The preponderance of evidence 
reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the 
disability process.  The IPEB recommended the applicant be 
discharged with severance pay with a disability rating of 
10 percent for diagnoses of anxiety disorder and depressive 
disorder, NOS.  The IPEB listed the applicant’s pervasive 
developmental disorder, Asperger's and personality disorder as 
conditions that are not separately unfitting and not compensable 
or ratable.  On 19 July 2010, the applicant concurred with the 
IPEB’s recommendation and requested an earlier separation date 
of 23 August 2010.  Documents submitted by the applicant 
indicate that in June 2013 the DVA changed his application 
request for a new service connected disability from seizure 
disorder to narcolepsy.  However, the applicant did not meet a 
PEB for narcolepsy or seizure disorder.

As background, the Department of Defense and DVA disability 
evaluation systems operate under separate laws.  Under Title 10, 
USC, PEBs 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 his military duties.  If the board 
renders a finding of unfit, the law provides appropriate 
compensation due to the premature termination of the member’s 
career.  Further, it must be 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, the DVA may 
rate any service-connected condition based upon future 
employability or reevaluate based on changes in the severity of 
a condition.

The complete DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 28 February 2014, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 
30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response 
(Exhibit D).


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 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 the 
rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion 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.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) 
involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered.


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 this application 
in Executive Session on 20 November 2014, under the provisions 
of AFI 36-2603:

      , Panel Chair
      , Member
      , Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR BC-2014-
00281 was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, 16 January 2014, w/atchs.
  Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
  Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPFD Advisory, dated 13 February 2014 
  Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 February 2014.