RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2014-00707
					COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His separation be changed to a medical retirement.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should receive a medical retirement to merge with his 
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) disability rating.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 6 March 
2007.

According to a Personnel Processing Action (PPA) printout dated 
14 February 2012, the applicant requested a miscellaneous 
separation for dependency or hardship with an effective 
separation date of 30 June 2012.  His commander concurred with 
the request stating that his separation nine months early would 
not negatively affect the unit.

The applicant was honorably released from active duty on 30 June 
2012 with a narrative reason for separation of “Miscellaneous - 
General Reasons” and Reentry (RE) Code “lJ” which denotes 
“Eligible to Reenlist but Elected to Separate.”  He was credited 
with 5 years, 3 months and 25 days of active duty service.

According to a DVA rating decision letter dated 3 October 2012, 
the applicant received a rating of 70 percent for service 
connected disability compensation.





AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request for a 
medical retirement.  Based on the documentation on file in his 
records, the discharge to include the separation code, narrative 
reason for separation and character of service was appropriately 
administered and within the discretion of the discharge 
authority.  The applicant did not provide any evidence that an 
error or injustice occurred in the processing of his discharge.  
The applicant submitted a voluntary request for separation under 
the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of 
Airmen.  Specifically, he applied under the 
miscellaneous/general reasons.  Per AFI 36-3208, paragraph 
3.15 airmen who do not qualify for separation for another 
request may ask for separation under miscellaneous reasons.  
Therefore, the applicant’s DD Form 214 is correct and In 
Accordance With (IAW) DOD and Air Force instructions.

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

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial as the applicant 
has not met the burden of proof to warrant changing his reason 
for discharge to a medical retirement.  The Disability 
Evaluation System (DES) established to maintain a fit and vital 
fighting force, can by law under Title 10 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 time of separation.  
DODI 1332.32, Physical Disability Evaluation, Enclosure 3, Part 
3, Standards for Determining Unfitness Due to Physical 
Disability or Medical Disqualification, paragraph E3.P3.2.1, in 
effect at the time of his service reads, “A service member shall 
be considered unfit when the evidence establishes that the 
member, due to physical disability, is unable to reasonably 
perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or 
rating.”

Although his service treatment records clearly indicate he 
received evaluation and treatment for a number of medical 
ailments, none were determined to be so severe as to interfere 
with his ability to carry out his military duties.  
Specifically, none resulted in profile restrictions of 
sufficient level for 12 months or more that prohibited worldwide 
qualification or which warranted initiation of a Medical 
Evaluation Board (MEB) or Deployment Availability Working Group 
(DAWG) review.  Additionally, although he was diagnosed with 
Adjustment Disorder, the condition did not rise to the level of 
severity to generate a recommendation for release from military 
service; despite the fact that his diagnosis evolved into a 
depressive disorder since release from military service.  


Based upon the medical evidence, the Medical Consultant found no 
medical condition that established, or should have established, 
a cause and effective relationship with the termination of the 
applicant’s military service.

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 
retainability, fitness to serve or narrative reason for 
separation.  This is the reason why an individual can be found 
fit for release from military service and sometime thereafter 
receive compensation ratings from the DVA for one or more 
service connected medical conditions which were not proven 
militarily unfitting for continued service.  

A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at 
Exhibit D.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 27 October 2014 for review and comment within 
30 days (Exhibit E).  As of this date, no response has been 
received by this office.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant recommends denial as 
the applicant did not provide compelling evidence of an error or 
injustice that would support changing his reason for discharge 
to a medical retirement.

A review of the applicant’s medical record did not uncover 
evidence the applicant had engaged in mental health treatment 
via therapy or psychopharmacological intervention during his 
time in the military.  He was seen once, 5 April 2012, in the 
behavioral health optimization program of his military treatment 
facility for a phase of life problem associated with pending 
separation from military service.  During a periodic health 
assessment on 19 January 2010, he reported some neurovegetative 
symptoms of depression associated with dislike for his job and 
geographical separation from his spouse, but declined a mental 
health referral.  The applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment 
disorder by different primary care providers on five occasions 
between 2010 and 2012.  He did not require treatment for 
adjustment disorder nor did his medical providers deem it to be 
a duty limiting condition.


Documentation from his VA compensation and pension examination 
dated 7 August 2012 indicates the applicant reported a 
significant history of depression beginning early in high school 
that later declined but returned in a more severe form while he 
was deployed to Iraq in 2009.  He also reported panic attacks 
that were triggered by crowded spaces.  The applicant provided a 
letter from the VA dated 3 October 2012 which lists depressive 
disorder not otherwise specified with panic disorder without 
agoraphobia to include symptom of sleep impairment (rated 
30 percent), left shoulder bursitis with impingement syndrome 
(rated 10 percent), right shoulder strain with bicep tendonitis 
(rated 10 percent), right wrist extensor digitorum tendonitis 
(rated 10 percent), thoracolumbar strain (rated 10 percent), 
left knee patellofemoral syndrome (rated 10 percent), right knee 
patellofemoral and IT band syndrome (rated 10 percent), and 
tinnitus (rated 10 percent).

The applicant has provided a copy of a memorandum of agreement 
between the VA and Department of Defense (DoD) that expanded the 
DoD/VA Integrated Pilot DES.  Although not explicitly stated by 
the applicant, he appears to intend for this document to offer 
support for tying his VA ratings to a rationale for a military 
medical retirement.  The Clinical Psychology Consultant notes 
IAW DoD Instruction 1332.38 (in use at the time of the 
applicant's discharge) in order for the applicant to have been 
entered into the disability evaluation system (DES) he must have 
met criteria for such a referral as listed in Enclosure 3 Part 
2 of the regulation.  Specifically in this case, he must have 
suffered from a medical condition that was eligible at that time 
for referral and received optimal medical treatment benefits, or 
he must have been expected to be unable to return to full 
military duty within one year of diagnosis of his medical 
condition.  Thus, a diagnosis alone would not trigger DES 
processing.  

The Clinical Psychology Consultant reminds the applicant that 
the Military Department operates under Title 10, United States 
Code (U.S.C.), and must base its actions upon evidence available 
at the “snap shot” in time of final military disposition.  In 
the opinion of the Clinical Psychology Consultant, medical 
records reviewed for this case, which document the applicant’s 
functioning during military service and at the time of 
discharge, do not support the presence of a mental health 
condition meeting criteria for initiating DES processing as 
listed in DoD Instruction 1332.38.  Alternatively, the VA 
operates under a different set of laws (Title 38, U.S.C.), with 
a different purpose, and is authorized to offer service 
connection and compensation for any medical condition for which 
it has established a nexus with military service regardless of 
the narrative reason for separation or the length of time 
transpired since discharge.  Therefore, post-service VA ratings 
do not equate to a Military Department conclusion that a service 
member is no longer fit for continued military service.

A complete copy of the Clinical Psychological Consultant’s 
evaluation is at Exhibit F.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 2 June 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 agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt their rationale expressed as the basis 
for our conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain his 
burden of proof that he has 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. 


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-2014-00707 in Executive Session on 14 July 2015 under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:




The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-00707 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 October 2013, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 8 August 2014.
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant,
	dated 3 October 2014.
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 October 2014.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant,
			  dated 20 May 2015.
Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 June 2015.