RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02161

  						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She receives a mental health diagnosis review.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The applicant did not present any contentions.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant developed mental health symptoms diagnosed as 
depression in 2007.  During the applicant’s initial Behavioral 
Outreach Program intake exam, she reported that she had a 
history of being seen for depression.

22 October 2009, the applicant was seen by a Medical Evaluation 
Board (MEB) and her case was referred to an Informal Physical 
Evaluation Board (IPEB) with a diagnosis of recurrent giant cell 
tumor of right distal radius.

The applicant was seen a second time by an MEB on 25 August 
2010 and her case was referred to an Informal Physical 
Evaluation Board (IPEB) with a diagnosis of recurrent giant cell 
tumor of right distal radius and dysthymic disorder with anxiety 
disorder.

On 6 October 2010, the IPEB evaluated the applicant’s case, 
found her unfit because of physical disability, and recommended 
temporary retirement with compensable percentage for physical 
disability of 100 percent in accordance with (IAW) the 
Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs 
Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) guidelines.  




On 26 January 2011, the applicant was released from active duty 
with an honorable characterization of service and a narrative 
reason for separation of “Disability, Temporary.”  She was 
credited with 6 years, 7 months and 12 days of active duty 
service.  On 27 January 2011 the applicant was placed on the 
Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) with a combined 
compensable physical disability rating of 100 percent.

On 26 June 2012, the IPEB reevaluated the applicant’s case and 
found that her medical condition had improved since being placed 
on the TDRL and appeared to have stabilized.  They found her 
unfit for duty and recommended permanent retirement with a 
disability rating of 60 percent IAW VASRD guidelines.

Special Order No. ACD-02993 reflects that on 8 August 2012, the 
applicant was removed from the TDRL and retired in the grade of 
staff sergeant with a compensable percentage of 60 percent for 
physical disability.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR) Special Review 
Panel (SRP) recommends that there be no change of the 
applicant’s disability and retirement determination.  The SRP 
states they reviewed the records for evidence of inappropriate 
changes in diagnosis of the mental health condition during 
processing through the military Integrated Disability Evaluation 
System (DES).  The evidence of the available records recorded no 
inappropriate changes in diagnoses to the applicant’s possible 
disadvantaged during the DES process.  This applicant therefore 
did not meet the inclusion criteria in the Terms of Reference of 
the Mental Health Review Project.

At the VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) evaluation performed on 
16 March 2011, approximately 2 months after being placed on the 
TDRL, the applicant indicated the mental health issues dating 
back to 2005, after the death of her father.  She continued with 
weekly therapy but was not taking psychotropic medications.  The 
applicant reported a good response to talk therapy.  Her sleep 
problem comes and goes and has not affected her duty 
performance.  She continues to have anxiety symptoms but anxiety 
attacks are now uncommon.  The applicant noted she is planning 
to marry in a few months; she has two children and reported 
psychosocial functioning is fine.  The mental status evaluation 
(MSE) was completely normal.  The examiner noted she does not 
meet diagnostic criteria for PTSD or major depression disorder 
(MDD) and diagnosed dysthymic disorder and anxiety disorder, NOS 
with a GAF of 62 (moderate); however, noted at the present time 
the symptoms are in the mild range.

The SRP agreed that PEB adjudication of unfitting dysthymic 
disorder with anxiety disorder, NOS was supported by the 
evidence and application of the provisions of VASRD §4.129 were 
appropriately not applied at TDRL entry.  The SRP considered if 
there was evidence for a §4.130 rating higher than 30 percent at 
time of placement on the TDRL.  The 50 percent rating requires 
occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and 
productivity which was not supported by the evidence.  Available 
treatment records at the time leading up to TDRL entry recorded 
no history of recurrent suicidal ideation, no psychiatric 
hospitalization, no visits to the emergency room, and no 
evidence of impairment in judgment or thinking.  The applicant 
reported good response to treatment and her GAF scores 
consistently recorded mild symptoms.  The panel acknowledged the 
findings at the VA C&P examination; however, considered the 
examination to be inconsistent with the applicant’s report of 
functional status and with the preponderance of evidence.  There 
was no indication from the record that the mental health 
condition was ever profiled and no mental health condition was 
implicated in the commander’s statement. At the VA C&P 
examination, the applicant noted she was no longer on 
psychotropic medications, was engaged to marry and noted no 
impairment in performance of duty.  The SRP considered the 
record in evidence best supported the 30 percent rating for TDRL 
entry and there was insufficient reasonable doubt (IAW VASRD 
§4.3) for recommending a 50 percent TDRL entry rating.

The panel then considered the rating for TDRL exit.  It noted 
that the applicant diagnosis was changed by the PEB and rated at 
10 percent. The PEB referenced a recent psychiatric evaluation 
that diagnosed major depression; however, that evaluation was 
not among the available treatment record in evidence.  
Information excerpted from that evaluation and recorded in the 
PEB adjudication noted the following.  The applicant excelled 
academically in the absence of psychotropic medication use, in 
the setting of an accelerated academic program where she was a 
full-time student.  She had remarried and reported good marital 
relationship.  Additionally, there was no evidence of emergency 
room visits, no psychiatric hospitalizations, no legal issues 
and no evidence of social impairment.  The panel considered the 
descriptions of both the 30 percent “occupational and social 
impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and 
intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks 
(although generally functioning satisfactorily, with routine 
behavior, self-care, and conversation normal) and 10 percent 
ratings “occupational and social impairment due to mild or 
transient symptoms which decrease work efficiency and ability to 
perform occupational tasks only during periods of significant 
stress, or; symptoms controlled by continuous medication.”  The 
panel determined that the performance evidenced was best 
described by the 10 percent rating.  After due deliberation, 
considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD 
§4.3 (reasonable doubt), the board concluded that there was 
insufficient cause to recommend a change in the PEB adjudication 
for the mental health condition at either TDRL entry or exit.

A complete copy of the PDBR/SRP evaluation is at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 10 November 2014 and 30 March 2015 for review and 
comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  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 opinion and 
recommendation of the Physical Disability Board of Review, 
Special Review Panel, and adopt its rationale as the basis for 
our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error of injustice.  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 this application 
in Executive Session on 30 June 2015 under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 April 2013, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Available Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit B.  Letter, PDBR/SRP, dated 27 May 2014.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 November 2014 and
	            30 March 2015.