RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01536

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His honorable discharge be changed to a medical retirement 
with retroactive retirement benefits.

2.  His appointment to sergeant be restored.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) which was not 
properly diagnosed.  The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) 
has since confirmed that he, in fact, had PTSD and he should 
have been medically discharged with retirement compensation and 
medical benefits.  

Also he should not have received a reduction in rank because of 
the military doctor’s inability to diagnose his condition of 
PTSD.  He has been battling this since his separation (28 Feb 
86) and continues to receive treatment for PTSD at the 
Tuscaloosa VA Medical Center in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

The Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider 
his untimely application because he was wrongfully discharged 
and has been fighting this since his discharge; he has PTSD that 
was misdiagnosed by the military and the DVA finally got it 
right and he now receives 30 percent disability; however, he 
should have been medically retired with retroactive benefits.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 23 Jan 79, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air 
Force for a period of four years.

On 1 Oct 81, the applicant was promoted to the grade of Senior 
Airman (SrA/E-4).  On 1 Oct 82, he appointed Non-Commissioned 
Officer (NCO) status as a Sergeant (Sgt/E4).

On 31 Jan 86, the squadron commander notified the applicant of 
administrative discharge action for conditions that interfere 
with military service: character and behavior disorders.  The 
specific reasons for the proposed action was that on or about 
23 Jan 86, the applicant was diagnosed with Axis I, Agoraphobia 
with Panic attacked; Axis II, Mixed Personality Disorder with 
Passive, Aggressive and Avoidant; Axis III, Seizure Disorder; 
Axis IV, Minimal Psychosocial Stressors, and Axis V, Poor 
Adaptive Functioning, as described in the Diagnostic and 
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), and it was 
determined that the discharge was deemed in the best interest of 
the Air Force.  On that same date, the applicant acknowledged 
receipt of the discharge notification.

On 4 Feb 86, the applicant’s NCO status was vacated in 
accordance with the governing Air Force directive.  

On 13 Feb 86, after consulting with counsel, the applicant 
waived his rights to a hearing before an administrative 
discharge board and to submit statements in his own behalf.  On 
18 Feb 86, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) found the case file 
legally sufficient to support separation and recommended the 
discharge, without probation and rehabilitation.  The discharge 
authority accepted the unconditional waiver and directed the 
applicant be honorably discharged, without probation and 
rehabilitation.

On 28 Feb 86, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge 
and was credited with 7 years, 1 month, and 6 days of active 
service.   


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFD recommends denial indicating the preponderance of 
evidence reflects the Physical Disability Division never 
received a referral to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and 
therefore could not have processed the case or given the 
applicant a medical retirement/separation.  

The complete DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial indicating there is no error or 
injustice to correct since the applicant was not demoted to the 
grade of Airman First Class (A1C/E-3) as he contends.

DPSOE notes the applicant was promoted to SrA on 1 Oct 81 and 
received his NCO status to Sgt (E-4) on 1 Oct 82.  On 4 Feb 86, 
the applicant's commander notified him that his NCO status had 
been vacated.  In accordance with AFR 35-16, paragraph 8-18a, a 
mandatory vacation of NCO status is required for involuntary 
discharge action, which had been initiated.

The complete DPOSE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  DPSOR notes that based on the 
documentation on file in the master personnel records, the 
discharge to include the separation code, the narrative reason 
for separation and character of service was consistent with the 
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge 
instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge 
authority.  DPSOR found no evidence of an error or injustice in 
the processing of the applicant's discharge.  

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit E.

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The Medical 
Consultant is aware of recent policies and Congressional 
interest governing assessment of individuals who received an 
under other than honorable conditions [or less than honorable] 
discharge, who has since been diagnosed with and received 
service connection for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD); 
but particularly those who participated in combat operations; 
whether Vietnam era or the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  
Moreover, current policy also dictates that when a Personality 
Disorder is considered the cause for separation, the mental 
health assessment must be conducted by a psychiatrist or PhD-
level psychologist, or words to that effect.

In the case under review, the applicant did not receive an under 
other than honorable conditions or less than honorable 
discharge, he was not a participant in combat operations [per 
review of EPRs], and, his mental health evaluation was conducted 
by a PhD-level psychologist.

The Medical Consultant acknowledges the applicant's report of 
being granted service connection for PTSD.  However, even when 
considering possible overlapping symptoms of PTSD, Panic 
Disorder, and Anxiety Disorder, military officials determined 
that it was his co-morbid Personality Disorder that presented 
the greatest obstacle to his treatment and retention and, thus, 
recommended the administrative discharge.  Therefore, it should 
be acknowledged that medical officials at the applicant's 
servicing medical facility did take into consideration that the 
applicant had an Axis I medical condition that warranted a 
Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).  However, upon review by the 
officials at the Air Force's flagship medical facility, a 
medical board was deemed not appropriate.  In addition, it 
should be noted that the DVA also does not recognize a 
developmental Personality Disorder as a compensable medical 
condition.  Nevertheless, the Medical Consultant concedes that 
since a Personality Disorder is developmental in origin, one 
would expect this to have raised its appearance much sooner in 
the applicant's military career; noting the previous successful 
enlistment period beginning in 1979.

In any case, absent a compensable medical condition as the 
primary impediment to duty or the cause for discharge, it 
appears that military command and medical officials acted within 
their authority to recommend an administrative discharge, under 
AFR 39-10, instead of a medical separation, under AFR 35-4 
[forerunner of today's AFI 36-3212].

The applicant is advised that the Department of Veterans Affairs 
(DVA), under 38 C.F.R., Section 4.125, describes steps to be 
taken when there is disagreement in a mental health diagnosis in 
the following: (a) "If the diagnosis of a mental disorder does 
not conform to DSM-IV or is not supported by the findings on the 
examination report, the rating agency shall return the report to 
the examiner to substantiate the diagnosis; (b) If the diagnosis 
of a mental disorder is changed, the rating agency shall 
determine whether the new diagnosis represents progression of 
the prior diagnosis, correction of an error in the prior 
diagnosis, or development of a new and separate condition.  If 
it is not clear from the available records what the change of 
diagnosis represents, the rating agency shall return the report 
to the examiner for a determination."  No such analysis and 
conclusion have been presented by a competent military, 
civilian, or a VA mental health authority in the applicant's 
case.

The applicant is also advised that the Military Department, 
operating under Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), bases its 
actions upon the evidence present at the "snap shot" time of 
final military disposition.  To the contrary, the DVA, operating 
under a different set of laws [Title 38, U.S.C.] with a 
different purpose, is authorized to offer service connection and 
compensation for any medical condition that it establishes a 
nexus with military service, without regard to the narrative 
reason for release from service or the length of time transpired 
since discharge.

The DVA is also empowered to conduct periodic reevaluations for 
the purpose of adjusting the disability ratings at the level of 
impairment for a given medical condition may vary over the 
lifetime of the veteran.

The Medical Consultant notes that the applicant's petition has 
been markedly delayed under the law and that any "new" evidence 
procured through interview, does not automatically invalidate 
the information disclosed, observed behavior, and analyses (pl.) 
made at the time of his military service.

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit F.

The Clinical Psychology Consultant recommends denial.  The 
Clinical Psychology Consultant recognizes the applicant’s 
contention that he was diagnosed with PTSD by the VA, although 
supporting documentation was not included in the materials 
reviewed for this case.  Regardless of the diagnosis, this 
Consultant reminds the Board that a diagnosis alone does not 
render a Service member unfit for continued military service. 
The proposed treatment for his anxiety disorder in 1985 was 
appropriate regardless of the differential diagnosis (e.g., PTSD 
vs. Panic Disorder).  Systematic desensitization proposed to 
treat his panic attacks fits well within prolonged exposure 
protocols currently employed for treating PTSD.  What appears to 
have stalled treatment was the applicant’s lack of motivation 
for services despite the problems his symptoms may have caused 
him at work.  The medical providers in this case did not move 
straight to a recommendation for administrative separation.  
They first sought input on the appropriateness of a medical 
board and it was determined that such a board was not required. 
His personality characteristics were noted to be interfering 
with the treatment process and such features are not 
compensable.  Therefore, he was subjected to administrative 
separation IAW AFR 39-10.  The applicant offered no contention 
at that time and submitted an unconditional waiver for his right 
to a discharge board.  His argument that he has been fighting 
the discharge since his release from service does not appear to 
be supported by the supplied documentation.

The applicant is advised that a diagnosis or disability rating 
from the VA does not equate to a Military Department decision 
that he was unfit for continued military service for the same 
condition at the time of his discharge.  The Military Department 
operates under Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.) and must 
base its decisions on the “snap shot” in time of the Service 
member’s final disposition.  In this case, the impact of the 
applicant’s anxiety disorder on his fitness for duty was not 
deemed to meet the threshold for disability evaluation system 
processing.  At the snap shot of final disposition his non-
compensable personality disorder was viewed as driving 
significant treatment complications and prevented efforts to 
return him to full duty and thus necessitated administrative 
separation.

On the other hand, the VA operates under Title 38 U.S.C. with a 
different mission and picks up where the Military Department, by 
law, must leave off.  The VA is authorized to compensate a 
Veteran for any medical condition for which it has established a 
nexus with military service regardless of the time that has 
passed since discharge or progression of the condition.  Unlike 
the Military Department, the VA may conduct periodic 
reassessments of the condition and adjust its ratings 
accordingly.

The complete Clinical Psychology Consultant evaluation is at 
Exhibit G.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 7 Jul 15 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit H).  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.  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 both the BCMR Medical Consultant and the BCMR 
Psychology Consultant and adopt their rationale as the basis for 
our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error 
of injustice.  Additionally, the Board found no evidence to 
support the applicant’s contention to reinstate his vacated NCO 
status.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 
we find no basis to recommend granting the requested 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-2014-01536 in Executive Session on 27 Aug 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

		, Panel Chair
		, Member
		, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Jul 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 13 May 13 [sic].
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 16 May 14.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 11 Jun 14.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, 
                  dated 5 Nov 14.
      Exhibit G.  Letter, BCMR Psychology Consultant, 
                  dated 22 Jun 15.
      Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Jul 15.
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
	

7