RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00505

  			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  YES 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be medically retired.  


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was retained on the TDRL for five years and is rated 50% 
disabled for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) by the 
Veteran’s Affairs.  His overall rating is 90%.  After more than 
five years, he still requires care for his leg and PTSD.  He has 
missed countless days of work.  He had to close his business due 
to PTSD related symptoms such as depression, anxiety and hyper-
vigilance.  Because of these symptoms, he is unable to care for 
himself and his family.  A decision of discharged with severance 
pay is detrimental to his recovery and his family.

An error exists because he sent the appropriate documentation 
within the appropriate time limits to non-concur with the 
determinations of the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) to request a 
Formal PEB to contest the decision.  The documents were never 
received by the TDRL office and he was never scheduled to meet the 
FPEB.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former member of the Air Force.  On 27 June 
2013, the Informal PEB (IPEB) found him unfit for combat related 
PTSD and recommended he be discharged with severance pay with a 
compensable percentage of 10%.  On 30 October 2013, he was removed 
from the TDRL and discharged with entitlement to severance pay, in 
the grade of senior airman.

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFD recommends denial.  The applicant was placed on the TDRL 
27 August 2008, for a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder 
(PTSD) rated at 50% and delayed union of left fibular with injury 
to peroneal and posterior tibial nerve rated at 30% for a combined 
compensable rating of 70%.  

On 20 March 2009, the applicant had his first TDRL re-evaluation. 
The IPEB retained him on TDRL with a 30% disability rating for his 
PTSD.  The IPEB reviewed his second TDRL re-evaluation on 
7 September 2010 for his PTSD and retained him on TDRL with a 30% 
disability rating.  The IPEB reviewed the applicant's third TDRL 
re-evaluation on 27 June 2013, and recommended he be removed from 
TDRL and discharged with severance pay with a disability rating of 
10%. 

The narrative summary from the physician noted the applicant was 
feeling better since his last TDRL exam in August 2010, which he 
attributes to focusing on one of his passions, mechanical/engine 
repair, and turning his passion into a business.  The IPEB noted: 
"Applicant reports struggling with PTSD symptoms on a regular 
basis though he does not consider the symptoms severe. The SM 
lives in a house with his wife and two small children.  He works 
alone but states his business has been doing well enough that he 
is considering hiring someone soon to help with the work load.  
His social/industrial impairment is mild with a GAF of 65." 

The findings were sent to the applicant on 5 July 2013 noting his 
election statement should be received by 30 July 2013; it would be 
understood that he agreed with the recommendation of the IPEB, and 
officials within the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force 
would take action to finalize his case.  No concurrence was 
received and a special order was issued on 10 October 2013 which 
removed him from TDRL effective 30 October 2013.

The IPEB's recommendation was sent to the applicant’s home address 
of Cleveland, Texas on 5 July 2013.  This was the same address 
that his past two travel orders were sent to for him to attend his 
TDRL re-evaluation exams.  He had until 30 July 2013 to return his 
signed election statement. Due to personnel changes and relocation 
of the TDRL office, his case was not worked until 10 October 2013.  
The case should have been worked out in July 2013.  However, due 
to administrative personnel changes, it was not finalized until 
October 2013.

As background, the Department of Defense and the Department of 
Veterans Affairs (DVA) disability evaluation systems operate under 
separate laws. Under Title 10, USC, Physical Evaluation Boards 
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 unfitting for continued 
military service.  To be unfitting, the condition must be such 
that it alone precludes the member from fulfilling their military 
duties. 

If the board renders a finding of unfit, the law provides 
appropriate compensation due to the premature termination of their 
career.  Further, it must be noted the USAF 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.  This often 
results in different ratings by the two agencies.

The preponderance of evidence reflects that no error or injustice 
occurred during the disability process.

The complete AFPC/DPFD 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 22 September 2014 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:

The BCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant recommends denial.  The 
applicant has included a statement from his prescribing provider 
in support of his request.  This statement seems to echo the 
conclusion drawn from the applicant’s final TDRL re-evaluation: 
his symptoms had decreased in severity over time and were largely 
stable.  He may in fact have experienced an “intermittent flare” 
of PTSD following the last TDRL re-evaluation.  However, the 
applicant is advised that the Military Department operates under 
Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), and must base its actions 
upon the evidence available at the “snap shot” in time of final 
military disposition.  

In this case, the information gleaned during the last TDRL re-
evaluation served to provide the relevant “snap shot.”   On the 
other hand, the VA, operating under a different set of laws (Title 
38, U.S.C.) with a different purpose, is authorized to offer 
service connection and compensation for any medical condition for 
which it has established a nexus with military service without 
regard to the narrative reason for release from service or the 
length of time transpired since discharge.  The VA is also 
empowered to periodically conduct re-evaluations to adjust a 
veteran’s disability ratings as the level of impairment for a 
given medical condition may vary over a lifetime.

The applicant argued that he is “unable to work” and “…had to 
close the business due to PTSD related symptoms…”, concerns that 
will be important to convey during his next re-evaluation through 
the VA.  Unfortunately, this post-discharge progression of 
symptoms is not something the Military Departments, by law, are 
permitted to rate.

The Board may or may not concur with the applicant’s claim that he 
should have been provided a forum with the Formal PEB.  
Nevertheless, the Clinical Psychology Consultant concludes from 
the information available at the “snap shot” in time of the 
applicant’s last TDRL re-evaluation, he was a successfully self-
employed individual with chronic and stable, but not severe, 
symptoms of PTSD controlled with a continuous, albeit decreased, 
medication regimen.  A similar description ultimately led the 
Informal PEB to recommend the applicant’s discharge with severance 
pay and a rating of 10% for PTSD.  

Regrettably, the Clinical Psychology Consultant identifies no 
error or injustice in this regard and does not recommend changing 
the applicant’s compensable rating.

The complete BCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant’s 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 29 May 2015 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 office of primary responsibility 
(OPR) and the BCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant and adopt their 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not 
been the victim of an error of injustice.  We took note of the 
applicant’s contention that his request to appeal to the Formal 
PEB was never received by the TDRL office; however, he did not 
provide evidence to substantiate this claim.   Therefore, in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend 
granting the requested relief.

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 issues involved.  
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.


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-2014-00505 in Executive Session on 7 July 2015 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Jan 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Record.
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 4 Mar 15.
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Sep 14.
Exhibit E.  Letter, BCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant, 
        dated 19 May 15. 
Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 May 15.