RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03866 

 

COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His mental health diagnosis be reviewed. 

 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The applicant makes no contentions, other than a request to review 
his mental health diagnosis. 

 

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

 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 3 Jul 03, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force this 
period. 

 

On 14 Dec 07, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) referred the 
applicant’s diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) to 
an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). 

 

On 6 Nov 08, an MEB referred the applicant’s diagnoses of 
Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) and encephalopathy, alcohol 
related and alcohol dependence to an IPEB. 

 

On 23 Jan 08, the applicant’s MEB case was directed to be 
reaccomplished due to lack of clear diagnosis. 

 

On 21 Apr 09, the IPEB adjudicated the applicant’s conditions as 
unfitting with a compensable rating of 10%, and recommended 
permanent retirement. The applicant nonconcurred with the IPEB. 

 

On 16 Jun 09, the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) 
adjudicated the applicant’s conditions as unfitting but not 
compensable or ratable and recommended he be returned to duty. 
The applicant concurred with these findings. 

 

On 17 Jul 09, the applicant was found fit and returned to duty. 

 


In January 2010, the applicant was relieved from active duty and 
retired effective 1 Feb 10, and furnished an honorable discharge, 
and was credited with 22 years 12 days of active service. 

 

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 DoD Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR) Special Review 
Panel (SRP) recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice. In accordance with Secretary of Defense 
(SecDef) directive for a comprehensive review of Service members 
who were referred to a disability evaluation process between 
11 Sep 01 and 30 Apr 12 and whose Mental Health (MH) diagnoses 
were changed or eliminated during that process, the applicant’s 
case file was reviewed regarding diagnosis change, fitness 
determination, and rating of unfitting MH diagnoses in accordance 
with the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Schedule for Rating 
Disabilities (VASRD) §4.129 and §4.130. The applicant’s records 
indicate a diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), not 
otherwise specified (NOS), and “history” of posttraumatic stress 
disorder (PTSD) was rendered during the Disability Evaluation 
System (DES) processing. Because a MH diagnosis was changed to 
the applicant’s possible disadvantage during that process, he met 
the criteria of the SecDef MH review project. Only the MH 
conditions were addressed by this review, and any other conditions 
or requests were outside the SRP scope. 

 

The applicant developed MH symptoms diagnosed as GAD NOS and 
history of encephalopathy [disorder or disease of the brain] 
around December 2006. The GAD NOS and encephalopathy conditions 
could not be adequately rehabilitated to meet the requirements of 
his Air Force Specialty so the applicant was issued a permanent 
profile and referred for an MEB. The MEB identified GAD NOS, 
encephalopathy, and history of PTSD, along with six non-MH 
conditions; however, that MEB was rescinded by a later MEB, which 
noted the MH diagnoses as only GAD and encephalopathy as not 
meeting retention standards. His case was then referred to a PEB. 
The PEB adjudicated the GAD NOS condition as unfitting and 
rendered the applicant a 10% disability rating. The applicant 
appealed to the Formal PEB, which negated the findings and 
returned the applicant to duty. He subsequently retired in 
February 2010. 

 

The SRP reviewed the records for evidence of inappropriate changes 
in diagnosis of the MH condition during processing through the 
DES. The SRP noted PTSD diagnosis was listed without associated 
PTSD symptoms, and the identifying neurologist indicated the 
diagnosis had been based on a civilian neurologist’s chart review. 
The SRP acknowledge the DVA Compensation and Pension (C&P) 


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY–PRIVACYACT OF 1974

examiner’s assessment and diagnosis of PTSD; however, there was 
insufficient clinical evidence to support that DSM-IV (Diagnostic 
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4thEdition)
diagnostic criteria were met. The treating psychiatristspecifically noted the applicant did not have evidence for PTSDand had denied symptoms consistent with PTSD. Multiple clinicianstreated the applicantover a 2-yearperiod and none recordedevidence to support aPTSDdiagnosis.There was insufficient 
evidence that the applicant met Criterion Astressor criteria.
All [SRP] Panelmembers agreed the preponderance of evidencedid 
not support a PTSDdiagnosis.The SRPconcluded the diagnosis ofgeneralizedanxietyNOSwas the appropriate diagnosis at the timeof the decision to retain the applicant in the active duty status.

The SRP also considered whether any mental condition, regardlessof specificdiagnosis was unfitting for continued militaryservice. The SRP agreed thatevidence of the record reflectedminimal MHrelated symptoms. All of the mental status 
examinationswere normal, he never reported suicidal ideations,
was notseen in the emergency room for suicidal thoughts, panic 
attacks, or other anxiety related issuesand all of his global 
assessments of functioningwere maintained in the mild range, even 
at the DVA C&P examination. The applicant had a total of eight 
visits with MHprior to being retained.The applicant, in hisrequestto remain in active duty, noted he had resolved all MHissues. The treating psychiatrist notedhis MHcondition was in 
remission. TheMHcondition was never specifically profiled. Theapplicant continued with active duty, and there were no further MHencounters in evidence. The SRP therefore concluded that there 
was insufficient evidence that any MHconditionrose to the levelof being unfitting at the time ofretirementand therefore nonewere subject todisability rating.

A complete copy of the PDBR SDPevaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copyof the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicanton 31 Mar 15 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 existinglaw or regulations.
2.The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY–PRIVACYACT OF 1974

3


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 A DoD Physical Disability Board of Review 
Special Review Panel and adopt its rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of 
injustice. Specifically, we note their finding that there was 
insufficient evidence of any mental health condition that rose to 
the level of being unfitting at the time of retirement; therefore, 
no mental health conditions were subject to a disability rating. 
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-2014-03866 in Executive Session on 30 Jun 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Mar 14, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Memorandum, PBDR SRP, dated 31 Aug 14. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Sep 14. 

Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 31 Mar 15.