RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 		DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00602

 XXXXXXXXXXXX		COUNSEL:  NONE

				HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be changed to a medical retirement.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While he was active duty, he developed depression, migraine 
headaches, tension headaches, bilateral tinnitus and left/ right 
medial tibial stress syndrome.  He has been unable to run since 
leaving the military.  He was discharged with a narrative reason 
of personality disorder.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 6 January 2009.  
On 13 January 2012, his commander notified him that he was 
recommending him for discharge after being diagnosed with a 
personality disorder, which was so severe that his ability to 
function effectively in the military environment was 
significantly impaired. 

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of 
discharge.  He was advised of his right to consult with legal 
counsel and submit statements in his own behalf.  The applicant 
consulted counsel; however, he waived his right to submit 
statements.  On 23 January 2012, the base legal office reviewed 
the case and found it legally sufficient to support separation.  
On 27 January 2012, the discharge authority approved the 
separation and directed the applicant be discharged with an 
honorable service characterization.  He was discharged on 
1 February 2012.  His narrative reason for separation was listed 
as personality disorder.  He was credited with 3 years and 
28 days of active duty service.

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,D and F.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  The applicant's SPD code and 
narrative reason for separation are correct as indicated.  
AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 
5.11.9 states "A recommendation for discharge under this 
provision must be supported by a report of evaluation by a 
psychiatrist or clinical psychologist that confirms the 
diagnosis of a disorder listed below, as contained in the 
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Medial Disorders (DSM-IV)." 

The commander received such a report from a qualified medical 
professional and provided the documented evidence to the 
discharge authority with a recommendation for discharge.  This 
was done correctly and in accordance with the discharge 
instruction.  The applicant's character of service is correct as 
indicated on the DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or 
Discharge from Active Duty.  Both the commander and the 
discharge authority determined the applicant's character of 
service warranted an Honorable discharge.  

The discharge, to include the SPD code, narrative reason for 
separation and character of service were consistent with the 
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge 
regulation.  There was no evidence provided by the applicant to 
show an error or injustice occurred in the processing of his 
discharge.

The complete AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  
On 21 October 2011, the results of a mental health evaluation 
conducted by a psychiatrist, was addressed to his commander. The 
report indicated that antidepressants were initiated during the 
hospitalization and at follow-up at the military facility, but 
"were not effective as it was believed that the Service member's 
underlying personality disorder likely contributed to these 
symptoms."  

The report also indicated that the applicant was seen for 
23 sessions until 8 September, at which time treatment was 
terminated after achieving "maximal medical benefit," but that 
occupational/interpersonal difficulties continued, to include 
following military customs and courtesies, and problems with 
command and authority."  The concluding diagnostic arrangement 
included: Axis I: Depression, not otherwise specific, in 
remission, and Axis II: Personality Disorder, not otherwise 
specified.

The applicant's intervening separation history and physical [DD 
Form 2697, Report of Medical Assessment], initiated on 
13 January 2012, on which the evaluating provider noted: "PT 
[patient] has no current health complaints and migraine HA 
[headaches] are stable on current medications.  He has been 
evaluated by mental health and cleared from any threatening 
disorders, but has personality disorder conflicting with 
military lifestyle and regulations.  Clear for separation. 
Follow-up care as needed with civilian PCM, mental health, [and] 
neurology if needed for headaches.”

On 23 July 2013, a rating decision was dispatched from the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), assigning the applicant a 
50% disability rating for migraine and tension headaches, a 10% 
disability rating for depression, not otherwise specified, a 10% 
rating for bilateral tinnitus, and a 0% [zero] rating each for 
left and right tibial stress syndrome. Zero percent ratings are 
assigned by the DVA when there is no current demonstrable 
functional impairment, albeit acknowledged as service-connected. 
In the rationale for the rating decisions, the VA examiner also 
noted the applicant's "Personality Disorder, not otherwise 
specified" and acknowledged that "Personality Disorder is not 
recognized as a disability for VA purposes." 

Addressing the applicant's expressed desire for a medical 
retirement, the military Disability Evaluation System (DES), 
established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by 
law, under Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), only offer 
compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries 
which specifically rendered a member unfit for continued active 
service and were the cause for career termination; and then only 
for the degree of impairment present at the lime of separation 
and not based on future occurrences. Also acknowledging the 
applicant's other reported medical conditions, no evidence is 
supplied to indicate that either of these conditions interfered 
with his ability to perform his military duties to the extent or 
duration that warranted an alternative separation under AFI 36-
3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, and 
Separation, as would be reflected on AF Forms 422s [e.g., "P4" 
or "L4" profiles]. AF Forms 469, Duty Limiting Conditions 
Reports, or service narrative summaries that indicate the 
existence of a medical condition that prohibits deployment and 
warrants MEB/PEB processing.

On the other hand, operating under a different set of laws 
(Title 38, U.S.C.), with a different purpose, the DVA is 
authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition 
determined service incurred, without regard to [and independent 
of] its demonstrated or proven impact upon a service member's 
fitness for continued service or narrative reason for release 
from military service; nor the intervening or transpired period 
since the date of separation. With this in mind, Title 38, 
U.S.C., which governs the DVA compensation system, was written 
to allow awarding compensation ratings for any condition with a 
nexus with military service.  This is the reason why an 
individual can be found fit for release from active military 
service for one reason and yet thereafter receive compensation 
ratings from the DVA for medical conditions found service-
connected, but which was not proven militarily unfitting during 
the period of active service. The DVA is also empowered to 
conduct periodic re-evaluations for the purpose of adjusting the 
disability rating awards (increase or decrease) as the level of 
impairment from a given service connected medical condition may 
vary (improve or worsen, affecting future employability) over 
the lifetime of the veteran.

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


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation and the BCMR Medical 
evaluation were forwarded to the applicant on 22 September 2014 
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:

The AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant recommends denial.  
The Clinical Psychology Consultant is familiar with the 
requirements used when determining whether a Service member 
suffers from a mental health condition that calls into question 
fitness or suitability for continued military service, and 
recognizes that a Service member suffering from multiple mental 
health conditions may simultaneously be potentially unfitting 
and unsuiting.  

In the case at hand, the applicant was diagnosed with 
personality disorder not otherwise specified and depression not 
otherwise specified.  The former relates to his suitability for 
continued military service and the latter to his fitness.  This 
Consultant reminds the applicant the mere existence of a 
diagnosis does not automatically trigger a recommendation for 
either a medical evaluation board (MEB) or administrative 
separation.  When a condition precludes satisfactory performance 
of duty or worldwide assignability or deployment, a Service 
member is scrutinized for processing via disability evaluation 
system or administrative channels, as delineated by AFI 48-123 
and DODI 1332.38 (versions in use at time of applicant’s 
discharge).  

A review of the materials associated with this case did not 
produce a compelling causal link between depression and the 
behavior that ultimately led to his discharge.  The applicant is 
advised that the VA’s determination of service connection for a 
mental health condition is not confirmation that the diagnosis 
was unfitting at the time of discharge from military service.  

The complete AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant’s evaluation 
is at Exhibit F.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant evaluation 
was forwarded to the applicant on 29 May 2015 for review and 
comment within 30 days (Exhibit G).  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 error or injustice.  We took notice 
of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we are not persuaded by the evidence 
submitted in this appeal that a change in the record is 
warranted.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility, the BCMR Medical Consultant and the BCMR 
Clinical Psychology Consultant 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 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-2014-00602 in Executive Session on 7 July 2015 under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:



	
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-00602 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Feb 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Record Excerpts.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 7 Mar 14.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, 
                 dated 13 Aug 14.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Sep 14.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant, 
                  dated 20 May 15.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 May 15.