RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2014-00807
	
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  He receives Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration to 
the grade of Colonel (O-6), by the Calendar Year (CY) 10C Below-
the-Promotion Zone (BPZ), CY11B In-the-Promotion Zone (IPZ), and 
CY12B Above-the-Promotion Zone (APZ) Colonel Central Selection 
Boards (CSBs).

2.  His diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) be 
considered an “unfit” condition and he be medically retired from 
the Air Force.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was erroneously diagnosed with Bi-Polar Disorder when he 
sought treatment for PTSD from combat operations.  The 
misdiagnosis error disqualified him from promotion and had he 
been correctly diagnosed, he would have been promoted but 
instead, he competed against other airmen not suffering from 
PTSD.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 11 Oct 13, the applicant was referred to a Formal Physical 
Evaluation Board (FPEB) for PTSD, cervical spine degenerative 
joint disease, and degenerative lumbar disc disease.  The PEB 
found the applicant’s condition unfitting and recommended a 
temporary retirement with a 60 percent compensable disability 
rating.  

On 19 Dec 13, the Secretary of the Air Force directed the 
applicant be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List 
(TDRL), with a disability rating of 60 percent under the 
provisions of 10 USC § 1202.

On 6 Jan 14, the Air Force Disability Evaluation System (DES) 
Attorney recommended the applicant’s disability rating for his 
diagnosis of PTSD be increased from 60 percent to 70 percent due 
to demonstrated symptoms of suicidal ideation, difficulty 
adapting to stressful circumstances, occupational and social 
impairment with deficiencies in most areas, and near-continuous 
panic or depression affecting the ability to function 
independently, appropriately and effectively.

On 27 Nov 14, the applicant was released from active duty and 
placed on the TDRL in the grade of Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col, 
O-5), for physical disability with a disability rating of 
80 percent, effective 28 Nov 14.  He was credited with 22 years, 
7 months, and 12 days of total active service.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial, indicating the applicant’s medical 
condition was not part of the promotion decision.  The medical 
issues on eligible officers are not part of the Officer 
Selection Record (OSR) or Officer Selection Brief (OSB) reviewed 
by the board members at either CSBs or SSBs.  The only way board 
members would know is if the officer wrote a letter to the board 
and advised them of such.  A review of the applicant’s record 
did not reveal he wrote a letter to the contested board.

The applicant was non-selected for promotion to the grade of 
colonel by the P0611B IPZ and the P0612B APZ Colonel CSBs.  
Additionally, on 9 Dec 13, he was non-selected for retention by 
the Selective Early Retirement Board (SERB).

The complete DPFDC evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit 
C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reiterates his request to receive SSB 
consideration to the grade of colonel due to his misdiagnosis of 
PTSD.  He asserts that the Officer Evaluation process is highly 
subjective and relies on factual information to make sound 
judgments but his chain had bad information that was critical to 
the decision process.  So he requests that he be provided a re-
boarding for CY11, CY12, and CY13 using supporting OPRs and PRFs 
consistent with his previous IPZ boards to the grade of major 
and Lt Col.  He admits that these are complicated circumstances 
and he does not blame his chain of command for what happened nor 
the Air Force.  His chain of command acted reasonably given the 
information they were provided.  So he is asking the Board to 
set the record straight.

Additionally, the applicant has provided a signed typed 
statement from his wife expressing how this situation has 
impacted her husband and their family.  She asserts that 
undiagnosed PTSD destroys lives, families, and societies at 
large.  She believes that airmen are prevented from seeking help 
due to the mental health stigmas and fear of career loss and 
asserts that the AFBCMR is propagating by refusal to take 
corrective actions.  She goes on to point out that although the 
Air Force Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) asserts that 
the promotion process was/is unaffected by medical issues or 
injuries to the applicant, she believes her husband’s records 
and ratings have definitely been affected by his long-term 
exposure to combat operations resulting in a breakdown in 
performance that was exacerbated by medical mistreatment, 
misinformation, and the resulting massive drug reactions that 
nearly took his life.  She believes the biggest factor bearing 
on this case is the negative impact of medical information 
provided to her husband’s rating officials over the past 
3½ years, and had that not been so, her husband’s career might 
have been saved and he would have had a reasonable opportunity 
for promotion.  She describes in detail how subsequent to her 
husband’s deployment, she witnessed him suffering from this 
disease and the drugs prescribed from the misdiagnosis of the 
disease.  She states the doctor’s failure to recognize 
medication side effects and serious allergic reactions nearly 
cost her husband his life (Exhibit E).

________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant recommends denial, 
indicating there is no clear association in fact or evidence 
that the diagnosis of bipolar disorder caused the applicant to 
be passed over for promotion, nor evidence or proof that he 
would have been promoted had he, instead, carried the diagnosis 
of PTSD at the time promotion boards were held.  The applicant’s 
behavior and symptomatology which led to multiple psychiatric 
hospitalizations would be sufficient to suspend any service 
member’s access to classified materials, involvement in 
sensitive operations and admission to facilities in which such 
work is accomplished regardless of the diagnosis given.  There 
is little evidence to support the contention that obvious signs 
of PTSD were missed by medical providers.  However, there is 
clear documentation that several medical providers believed the 
applicant could benefit from psychological intervention and had 
made this recommendation on various occasions.  The applicant, 
now retired for an unfitting mental health diagnosis, has 
received lengthy treatment for PTSD yet does not desire a return 
to duty.  The applicant’s concerns related to the “process” of 
promotion and the potential for a service member’s mental health 
condition to negatively impact duty performance are 
acknowledged.  However, the DES exists, at least in part, to 
allow the Military Department to compensate a service member 
whose career may otherwise be in jeopardy because a disability 
causes him or her to be unable to reasonably perform the duties 
of his or her office, as described in DODI 1332.38 (in effect at 
the time of the applicant’s MEB processing).  Thus, the whole of 
the Military Department’s various medical and personnel 
processes appear to have functioned as intended in this case 
using information available at the time.  

On 11 Oct 13, the FPEB listed PTSD as an unfitting condition 
specified as being incurred in a combat zone but not combat 
related with a 50 percent disability compensation rating.  The 
applicant was assessed a 60 percent overall compensable rating.  
Special Order ACD-02156 relieved the applicant from active duty, 
effective 27 Nov 2014 [sic], with a total of 22 years 7 months 
and 12 days of active service for retirement.  

The complete BCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant evaluation is 
at Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation was forwarded to 
the applicant on 14 Jun 15 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 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.  While the 
statements provided in support of his appeal are noted, he has 
not provided substantial evidence which, in our opinion, 
successfully refutes the assessment of his case by the Air Force 
Offices of Primary Responsibility.   Therefore, we agree with 
the opinions and recommendations of the AF OPR and adopt the 
rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the 
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of either an 
error or an injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief.

________________________________________________________________
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-2014-00807 in Executive Session on 14 Jul 15, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	                     , Panel Chair
	                     , Member
	                       , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Jan 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 18 Apr 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Nov 14.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Nov 14, w/atch.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant, 
dated 8 Jun 15.