RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2014-01239

				COUNSEL:  NONE

				HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

Her records be corrected to reflect her medical retirement was 
due to instrumentality of war or related to war.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was permanently medically retired from the military for 
post-traumatic stress disorder after multiple deployments into a 
war environment.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former member of the Air National Guard who 
was permanently disability retired in the grade of master 
sergeant effective 28 September 2013.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFD recommends denial.  On 16 July 2013, the Informal 
Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) reviewed her medical board for 
PTSD with anxiety disorder and recommended permanent retirement 
with a 30% disability rating.  The IPEB noted the service member 
is an aerospace medical service specialist with a history of 
PTSD related to a 2010 deployment to Afghanistan where she was 
exposed to mortar attacks.  She experienced no physical 
injuries.  However, she reported uncharacteristic rage behavior, 
flashbacks and anxiety triggers on return; she did not report 
PTSD until 2011.  She was initially diagnosed with anxiety 
disorder, in part based apparently on both personal and duty-
related stress but ultimately both civilian and military 
psychiatric providers defined chronic Axis I PTSD associated 
with marked military impairment.  Her condition initially 
appeared unresponsive to several trial of psychotropic 
medication and psychotherapy and would require indefinite 
intervention to maintain functioning, particularly if military 
triggers should continue.  Accordingly, the IPEB found her unfit 
and recommended permanent retirement with a 30% disability 
rating and deemed it non-combat/fear-easing standard.  

If the applicant felt her PTSD with anxiety disorder happened in 
a combat zone, she had two opportunities to appeal and she did 
not exercise her appeal options.  Based on the definition, the 
facts and circumstances involved, the IPEB noted that her PTSD 
with anxiety disorder happened in the combat zone, but was not 
combat related.  On 25 July 2013, the applicant concurred with 
the IPEB findings and her retirement date was established as 
28 September 2013.

Per AFI 36-3212, section 3.26, attachment 1, states Armed 
Conflict – Conflict between nations or other contestants 
entailing the physical destruction, or injury to, one another’s 
armed forces. Armed Conflict exists if the direct use of 
physical force endangers the lives or safety of members of the 
armed services of a nation, belligerent power, coalition or 
faction.  Armed conflict includes war, expedition, occupation of 
an area or territory, battle, skirmish, raid, invasions, 
rebellion, insurrection, guerrilla action, riot, or any other 
action in which Air Force military personnel engage a hostile or 
belligerent nation, faction or force.  It also includes 
involving a member while interned as a prisoner of war or while 
detained against his or her will in custody of a hostile or 
belligerent force or while escaping or attempting to escape from 
such confinement, POW or detained status.

Instrumentality of War – a vehicle, vessel or device designed 
primarily for Military Service and intended for used in such 
Service at the time of the occurrence of the injury.  It may 
also be a vehicle, vessel or device subjects the individual to a 
hazard peculiar to Military Service.  This use or occurrence 
differs from the use or occurrence under similar circumstances 
in civilian pursuits.  There must be a direct causal 
relationship between the use of the instrumentality of war and 
the disability and the disability must be incurred incident to a 
hazard or risk of service.   

AFI 36-3212, section 3.21.21 states the IPEB will make a combat-
related disability determination for:  Armed Conflict, Extra 
Hazardous Service, Conditions Simulating War and Instrumentality 
of War.

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

The complete DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant finds several discrepancies with the Air Force 
advisory.  The reason for her request does not specifically 
state knee replacement – yet, to correct the reasons for her 
forced retirement from the military.  The initiating reason for 
her medical discharge was due to PTSD of such severity that an 
active duty medical officer told her that not only was she not 
suited for military service, but that she would need permanent 
supportive therapy in order for her to function normally.

The letter states her condition initially appeared unresponsive 
and continues to be unresponsive to date.  She has tried several 
medications, psychotherapy and even sought help from a local 
church.  Nothing has helped.  In fact, she feels that has time 
goes by the best thing for her is to spend time alone.

The applicant recounts that she was aerospace medical service 
and assigned to a flying unit.  Being a 7-level, her training 
required her to perform duties akin to an independent medical 
technician.  Among those duties was to treat very traumatic 
injuries.  During her most recent deployment, she was showering 
at the onset of an attack.  She had no weapon at the time.  She 
quickly donned her uniform and protective gear and fell down the 
two story metal stair case and did incur injuries to her right 
knee.  She jumped up from her fall and did a self-check.  She 
could hear the sound of gunfire very close to her location.  She 
left the cover of her hut and made her way to the clinic in 
order to obtain a bag of medical supplies.  As she did, gun 
shelling’s fell on top of her and the buildings.  

After obtaining supplies, she made her way back toward the sound 
until she was stopped by a military policeman who instructed her 
to take cover.  The attack lasted several hours.  There were 
deaths and other traumatic injuries.  A few weeks after that 
attack she began to notice she did not feel quite right and the 
inability to sleep began.  The further in the deployment the 
more her commander asked about her.

As for having two opportunities to appeal, she was only made 
aware of one of them. She was told that if she disagreed with 
the findings, she would have to file a formal appeal by 
traveling to the medical board.  She could not have done that 
then and still cannot now.  There was no explanation of the 
guidelines and she felt it was best to sign the findings report.  
She asks that her injuries be considered combat related as if it 
were not for being physically present more than once in a war 
environment, she would not have the problems that will forever 
require her to seek help.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.   

________________________________________________________________



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.  The 
applicant's complete submission, to include her rebuttal 
comments, were thoroughly reviewed.  However, we find the 
evidence submitted is insufficient to determine that she has 
been the victim of error or injustice.  Additionally, evidence 
has not been submitted which would lead us to believe that the 
combat related determinations made at the final disposition were 
improper.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
and adopt its 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-2014-01239 in Executive Session on 8 January 2015, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-01239 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Sep 13, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 7 May 14.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Sep 14.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant’s Response, 10 Oct 14.