RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00517

 					COUNSEL:  NONE

					HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge from the Air Force Reserve (AFR) be changed to a 
medical retirement.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was separated for issues related to Post-traumatic Stress 
Disorder (PTSD).  After 16 years of honorable service, he was 
unjustly denied retirement.

The Board should consider it in the interest of justice to 
consider his untimely application as he was advised by the 
Disabled American Veterans (DAV) that he should have been 
medically retired.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 16 June 1987, the applicant entered the AFR.

In a letter dated 12 April 2005, the XXX Aerospace Medicine 
Squadron (XXX AMDS) advised the applicant that a Fitness for 
Duty Determination had been initiated.  The applicant was 
advised to review a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) fact sheet 
and to sign a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) election and 
return the documents for consideration no later than 12 May 
2005.  

According to an AFRC/SGPA letter dated 13 June 2005, the 
applicant was found medically disqualified for continued 
military duty In Accordance With (IAW) AFI 48-123, Medical 
Examinations and Standards, by reason of depressive disorder 
treated with Paxil.  

In a letter dated 20 June 2005, the AFRC Physical Evaluation 
Board (PEB) Manager stated the applicant did not return an 
election to have his case reviewed by the Informal Physical 
Evaluation Board (IPEB) and that the wing commander did not 
recommend retention.    

In a letter dated 6 July 2005, the XXX Aircraft Maintenance 
Squadron Commander (XXX AMXS/CC) recommended the applicant for a 
Reserve retirement.  

According to a letter from AFRC/DPM dated 27 July 2005, the 
applicant was notified of the recommendation that he be 
discharged IAW AFI 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures 
for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members, paragraph 
3.14, Physical Disqualification.  He was advised that because he 
had over 15 years but less than 20 years of satisfactory 
service, he was eligible to be transferred to the Retired 
Reserve.  He would qualify for retired pay at age 60 per 
10 U.S.C. § 12731 if he was approved for the transfer.  The 
applicant was advised to complete AF Form 131, Application for 
Transfer to the Retired Reserve, within 15 days after receipt of 
the memorandum and that failure to do so would constitute a 
waiver of this right and discharge proceedings would continue.  
The applicant was advised of his right to consult legal counsel 
and was appointed a judge advocate to assist him.  

On 11 August 2005, the Grandbury, TX United States Postal 
Service informed AFRC that the applicant had moved and left no 
forwarding address.  

An AF Form 1768, Staff Summary Sheet, dated 23 September 2005, 
reflects the AFRC Director of Personnel (AFRC/DP) requested the 
AFRC Vice Commander (AFRC/CV) approve the discharge 
recommendation IAW AFI 36-3209. The specific reason for the 
recommendation was the applicant’s physical disqualification 
(depressive disorder treated with Paxil).  He had 16 years, 
11 months and 28 days of service and was eligible for an early 
15 year retirement due to physical disqualification.  However, 
all attempts to contact the applicant had been exhausted; 
therefore, it was recommended the discharge proceedings against 
the applicant continue to be processed. 

According to a letter dated 30 September 2005, the AFRC/CV 
determined the evidence substantiated disqualification from 
continued service and directed the applicant be separated with 
an honorable discharge IAW AFI 36-3209. 

Per Reserve Order A-001 dated 5 October 2005, the applicant was 
discharged from the AFR effective 5 October 2005 with service 
characterized as honorable. 






AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/A1K defers the decision for a medical determination and 
states the requested correction is not within the purview of 
authority for the programs managed by their office. 

A complete copy of the A1K evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The BCMR Medical Consultant states that the decision to grant 
the applicant relief cannot be based upon a medical assessment 
or whether an error has occurred, but solely upon consideration 
of whether depriving him of an early retirement represents an 
injustice.  The Medical Consultant opines that Air Force 
officials acted within their authority in discharging the 
applicant under the provisions of AFI 36-3209.

On 27 July 2005, the applicant was recommended for an 
administrative discharge due to a disqualifying medical 
condition, a medical condition presumed to have been determined 
not in the Line of Duty (LOD).  It should also be noted that the 
applicant was identified a year earlier by his commander on 
15 March 2004 that he sought medical care for a condition that 
validated concerns regarding his suitability for continued 
service and that it seemed likely that some of the applicant’s 
less than satisfactory performance and conduct may have been in 
hindsight attributable to his medical condition.  The applicant 
was also not recommended for retention at the time.  However, 
since he had completed greater than 15, but less than 20, years 
of service, he would have been alternatively eligible for an 
early retirement under 10 U.S.C. § 12731.  However, several 
administrative entries indicated failed efforts to communicate 
with the applicant via telephone or via his last known mailing 
address.  As a result of the applicant’s failure to respond, the 
decision was made to proceed with administrative discharge.  

After leaving military service, the evidence indicates that he 
received continued medical care from the Department of Veterans 
Affairs (DVA) for various acute minor illnesses or injuries.  
Medical entries dated 27 March and 31 March 2006 show he 
reported he was diagnosed with PTSD after getting out of the 
Reserves.  The medical provider issued an Axis 1 “rule-out” 
diagnosis of PTSD and alcohol abuse, noting the applicant had 
not reported full criteria to meet diagnosis but reported 
multiple symptoms of such.  Thereafter, on 23 August 2007 he 
presented for a Preventive Health Screening which was positive 
for PTSD.  The medical entry shows he was seen in 2006 and had a 
Mental Health (MH) history completed but no-showed to them 
twice.  The applicant was also seen on 1 November 2007, when a 
provider reflected upon his previous assessments in March and 
August 2007 and noted he was restarted on medications; reporting 
nightmares about once per month and that he still startles at 
sudden noises and recurrent intrusive memories of his trauma 
while helping at Khobar Towers.  

The Medical Consultant has not been supplied the DVA rating 
decisions but found evidence in a 30 April 2011 medical entry 
which shows he was service-connected for PTSD and rated at 
30 percent.  Additionally, there was a statement that the 
applicant was diagnosed with PTSD five years prior and was 
reportedly discharged from the military at about the same time. 

The Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation, with attachment, 
is at Exhibit D.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 25 August 2014, copies of the Air Force evaluations were 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit E).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office.


ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/A1K states they initially deferred the matter to the USAF 
Physical Disability Division and AFRC/SG based on A1KK’s 
interpretation that the applicant only desired a disability 
retirement.  However, further review indicates this issue is 
within the purview of military personnel programs in regards to 
the applicant’s eligibility for a Reserve retirement in lieu of 
the administrative discharge he received based on a non-service 
connected disqualifying medical condition (depressive disorder) 
and recommends he be transferred to the Retired Reserve.  

He was discharged from the Reserves on 5 October 2005 IAW AFI 
36-3209.  At the time, he had 16 years, 11 months and 28 days of 
satisfactory service.  Per 10 U.S.C. § 12371b, a retirement with 
pay at age 60 is authorized for members like the applicant who 
have 15 but less than 20 years of satisfactory service and are 
no longer qualified for membership in the Selected Reserve 
solely because they are unfit based on physical disability.  
Accordingly, he would have been transferred to the Retired 
Reserve List with pay at age 60 in lieu of discharge had A1KK 
been able to contact him at his last known address.    

The complete A1K evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 9 January 2015, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit G).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office.



ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant recommends denial of the 
applicant’s request for a medical retirement.  There is no 
evidence in the materials provided for this case that the 
applicant’s MH condition at the time of discharge was so severe 
that a reasonable clinician, using the data available at the 
“snapshot” in time, would have argued for processing his case 
differently than via the course of action that ultimately led to 
his administrative separation.  The applicant was discharged 
from the AFR on 5 October 2005 after failing to provide required 
documentation to the medical staff of his Reserve unit that 
would enable processing him for a fitness for duty 
determination.  A NARSUM completed 17 April 2005 states the 
applicant triggered a world-wide duty evaluation when he was 
prescribed a maintenance medication for a psychiatric condition.  
He was not recommended for retention in the AFR at that time due 
to his failure to provide documentation of his treatment status 
to the Reserve component.  Numerous entries in his personnel and 
service treatment records reveal unsuccessful attempts to obtain 
necessary medical documents.  A memorandum dated 27 July 
2005 was sent to the applicant notifying him of the separation 
action.  There is no record that he elected to have his case 
reviewed by an IPEB.  

The Clinical Psychology Consultant notes that records provided 
by the applicant do not offer compelling evidence that his PTSD 
was caused or aggravated by military service or was so severe 
that he should have been deemed unfit for continued military 
service IAW DODI 1332.38, Physical Disability Evaluation, (in 
effect at the time of his separation) and compensated for same.  
The Clinical Psychology Consultant opines his repeated failure 
to appropriately participate in the fitness for duty process led 
to a dearth of any relevant, quality information that may have 
led the AFR to take any course of action other than 
administrative separation.  Moreover, a review of the records 
supplied for this case did not lead to a different conclusion, 
even with the benefit of hindsight.  It does appear the DVA 
established service connection for PTSD; nevertheless, the 
applicant is advised that the Military Departments operate under 
10 U.S.C. and bases it actions upon the evidence available at 
the “snap shot” in time of final military disposition and the 
mere existence of a diagnosis at that time does not necessitate 
a recommendation for medical retirement.  On the other hand, the 
DVA operating under a different set of laws, 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.  Thus, a post-service disability 
rating from the DVA does not equate to a conclusion that a 
veteran had a ratable disability at the time of discharge from 
military service. 
MH treatment records from the DVA indicate he was first assessed 
for PTSD on 27 March 2006.  At that time he reported being 
diagnosed with PTSD while in the AFR and attributed the reason 
for his discharge to this condition.  The DVA provider requested 
further documentation to substantiate his claim.  He was next 
seen in the DVA briefly during the fall of 2007 and winter of 
2008 and diagnosed with PTSD and alcohol dependence.  He was 
seen once in 2009 and once more on 30 April 2011.  The 30 April 
2011 note indicates he had never been in therapy but was open to 
it.  No other MH treatment records were uncovered in the 
materials provided by the applicant.  Regrettably, the Clinical 
Psychology Consultant recommends denial of the request for a 
medical retirement but concurs with AFRC’s recommendation that 
he be transferred to the Retired Reserve effective 5 October 
2005.

A complete copy of the BCMR Psychology Consultant’s evaluation 
is at Exhibit I.  


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 26 May 2015, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit 
I).  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 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 injustice to warrant a 
medical retirement.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete 
submission in judging the merits of the case; however, other 
than the recommendation to transfer the applicant to the Retired 
Reserve, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the 
BCMR Medical and Clinical Psychology Consultants’ and adopt 
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the 
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of either an 
error or injustice.  Although AFRC/A1K recommends that he be 
transferred to the Retired Reserve List, the applicant did not 
make this request; therefore, we find no basis to act on AIK’s 
recommendation.  In view of the above and in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to grant any relief 
in this application. 


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-2014-00517 in Executive Session on 20 November 2014, 
18 February 2015 and 6 July 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 January 2014. 
	     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	     Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFRC/A1K, dated 21 May 2014.  
	     Exhibit D.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated    
15 August 2014, w/atch.
Ex	     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 August 2014. 
 	     Exhibit F.  Memorandum, AFRC/A1K, dated 6 January 2015, 
w/atchs.
 	     Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 January 2015.
	     Exhibit H.  Memorandum, BCMR Clinical Psychology 
Consultant, dated 14 May 2015.
	     Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MBRB, dated 26 May 2015.