RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02261

	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show that he is eligible to reenlist.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Despite the fact that he was found fit for duty by three separate physicians, as well as a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), he was discharged for being unfit for duty.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 4 March 1996, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of 6 years in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5).

On 25 July 1997, the applicant was permanently decertified from the Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) based on a medical evaluation and diagnosis of anxiety disorder and possible panic attacks.

While serving as a nuclear weapons specialist, the applicant was referred to an Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) by his family practice physician after receiving treatment for a severe anxiety disorder and possibly panic attacks with agoraphobia.

On 19 August 1997, an MEB convened to determined whether the applicant should be continued on active duty.  Based on the diagnosis of anxiety/panic disorder, the MEB referred the applicant to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB).

On 17 November 1997, an IPEB convened and based on the diagnosis of panic disorder with agoraphobia, recurrent, with considerable social and industrial adaptability impairment, Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) diagnostic code 9412, recommended the applicant be temporarily retired with a 50% compensable disability rating.  The applicant agreed with the findings and recommendations.

Effective 3 March 1998, the applicant was relieved from active duty and on 4 March 1998, his name was placed on the TDRL with a compensable physical disability of 50%.  The applicant completed 11 years, 6 months, and 19 days of active service.  He was assigned a reentry code of “2Q” (Personnel medically retired or discharged).

On 10 September 1999, the applicant was evaluated while on the TDRL and his social and industrial impairment was described as severe with marked military impairment.

On 20 September 1999, an IPEB convened and based on the diagnosis of panic disorder with agoraphobia, definite social and industrial adaptability impairment, DVA Diagnostic Code 9412, recommended the applicant be permanently retired with a 30% compensable disability rating.  The IPEB noted that his condition was not expected to significantly change in the next several years.  The applicant did not agree with the IPEB findings and requested an FPEB be convened.

On 22 November 1999, a Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) convened and based on the diagnosis of panic disorder with agoraphobia, definite social and industrial adaptability impairment, DVA Diagnostic Code 9412, recommended the applicant be retained on the TDRL with a 30% compensable disability rating.  The FPEB noted that their decision to retain him on the TDRL was based solely on his recent decline in school precipitated by transient stressors and, upon reevaluation in 18 months, they would be interested in seeing his medical records while on the TDRL as well as his level of compliance.  The applicant agreed with the findings and recommendations.

On 12 February 2001, the applicant was evaluated while on the TDRL.  The examining physician found the applicant to be worldwide qualified and recommended he be retained.  His social and industrial impairment was considered mild, with minimal military impairment.  The physician further indicated that the applicant’s functioning was very good and that he might do well if returned to active duty status except for his weight remaining at 290 pounds.

On 13 March 2001, an IPEB convened and based on the diagnosis of panic disorder with agoraphobia, mild social and industrial adaptability impairment, DVA Diagnostic Code 9412, recommended the applicant be discharged with severance pay, with a 10% compensable disability rating.  The IPEB noted that the applicant’s medical condition had improved since being placed on the TDRL and appeared to have stabilized.  The applicant did not agree with the findings and recommendation of the IPEB.

On 1 May 2001, an FPEB convened and based on the diagnosis of history of panic disorder and agoraphobia, mild social and industrial adaptability impairment, DVA Diagnostic Code 9412, recommended the applicant be discharged with severance pay, with a 10% compensable disability rating. The applicant agreed with the findings and recommendations of the FPEB.

On 25 May 2001, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Board (SAFPB) agreed that the medical evidence indicated that the applicant’s condition was permanent, relatively stable on present medication management program and, continued to render him unfit for active military service.  In view of this, the SAFPB directed that his name be removed from the TDRL and that he be medically discharged, with severance pay.

The applicant’s name was removed from the TDRL on 24 June 2001, and he was discharged by reason of physical disability with entitlement to 10% severance pay.  He completed 14 years, 10 months and 10 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The BCMR Medical Consultant states, in part, that the applicant received full and impartial consideration during his disability processing.  Furthermore, the SAFPB thoroughly reviewed all aspects of his case, to include prior decisions, his current status, and medical recommendations.  The nature of the positions for which the applicant was trained would virtually all require PRP certification, a requirement that could not be met while the applicant was still requiring medication.  An additional consideration was the fact that the applicant was not within Weight Management Program (WMP) standards and had exceeded these standards while still on active duty.  The SAFPB voiced concern that he would not be able to meet such standards for enlistment were he to be deemed otherwise fit for duty.  While the applicant had made significant strides in overcoming his panic disorder with medication and intermittent follow-up over the three years he was on the TDRL, the fact that he was still considered mildly impaired for social and industrial considerations made SAFPB’s decision proper and without prejudicial error.  Therefore, the BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted and recommends denial of his request.

The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD states, in part, that the purpose of the military disability evaluation system is to maintain a fit and vital force by separating or retiring members who are unable to perform the duties of their office, grade, rank, or rating.  Those members who are separated or retired by reason of a physical disability may be eligible for certain compensation.  The decision to process a member through the military disability evaluation system is determined by an MEB when the member is determined medically disqualified for continued military service.  The decision to conduct an MEB is made by the medical treatment facility providing health care to the member.  The applicant was treated fairly throughout the military disability evaluation process.  In addition, he was properly rated under federal disability guidelines and was afforded a full and fair hearing as required.  They find no reason that would justify that his records be corrected to include a new reentry code to allow him to reenlist.  The medical aspects of the case are fully explained by the BCMR Medical Consultant and they agree with his advisory opinion.  The applicant has not submitted any documentation to show that he was improperly rated or processed under the Air Force disability evaluation process at the time of his discharge.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 23 October 2001 for review and response within 30 days.  However, 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  In this respect, we note that based on the diagnosis of anxiety/panic disorder the applicant was permanently decertified from the Personal Reliability Program (PRP) and processed through the Disability Evaluation System (DES).  Throughout his DES processing, he remained on medication.  Although an FPEB recommended that he be returned to duty and cross-trained into a non-PRP position, the SAFPB concurred with the IPEB’s recommendation that his separation with severance pay was more appropriate due to his continued need for medication and treatment.  While the applicant’s anxiety/panic attacks have subsided after leaving the service, we find no evidence that once returned to the stressors of active duty service, his attacks would not reoccur.  Furthermore, we do not believe it would be appropriate to return him to active duty while his condition requires medication and treatment.  Therefore, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 28 November 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

	            Panel Chair
	            Member
	            Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Aug 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 4 Sep 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 5 Oct 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Oct 01.