RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00980
		
		COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His medical conditions be formally evaluated to determine his suitability for active duty or a permanent medical retirement retroactive to July 1999.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was discharged medically for conditions that were never evaluated by a medical evaluation board (MEB). An informal physical evaluation board (IPEB) recommended discharge based on major depression.  A formal PEB recommended return to active duty.  The Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) office sided with the IPEB, but took into account medical conditions he was never evaluated for by the MEB.

In support of his appeal, applicant has provided a personal statement, DD Form 214, copies of a letter from SAF/MIBP, MEB report, TDRL reexamination, PEB, VA ratings, and other documents related to his case.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty Army on 19 August 1981.  After three years of active duty service, he transitioned to the Army Reserves.  On 10 May 1989, he entered active duty in the Air Force as a staff nurse.  The applicant was disability discharged on 16 July 2001 for Major Depressive Disorder with severance pay of 10 percent after 13 years, 10 months and 17 days of total active military service in the grade of major.

On 20 August 1999, an MEB was completed and found him not fit for worldwide duty with a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder.  The IPEB concurred with the MEB diagnosis, found him unfit for military service, rated him 30% and directed him to be placed on the TDRL and he concurred.  

On 10 April 2001, the IPEB found the applicant unfit, recommended removal from the TDRL and discharge with severance pay of 10%; he nonconcurred.  On 23 May 2001, a formal physical examination board (FPEB) found him fit and recommended return to duty and the applicant concurred.  

On 19 June 2001, SAF Personnel Council found him unfit and recommended he be discharged with severance pay of 10%.  The summary stated the board “… seeking to resolve this difference of recommended dispositions, noted the member’s most recent health evaluation with 29 positive answers for symptoms of disease and at least four chronic diseases requiring medication.”  On 16 July 2001, the applicant was removed from the TDRL.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

BCMR Medical Consultant recommended denial and stated the prepondence of the evidence of the record strongly supports a finding of unfit due to Major Depressive Disorder in full remission resulting in discharge with severance pay.  The evidence of the record also shows that the applicant’s other medical conditions were not unfitting and were therefore not ratable or condensable under the rules of the DoD disability systems.  Action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.  

BCMR Medical Consultant complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and stated that his case began when he was sent unaccompanied to Korea and developed Major Depressive Disorder that impacted his job performance. He was subsequently air-evaced back to Wilford Hall Medical Center.  He got better for a short period after treatment, but had another major relapse that prompted the original Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).  At that time the board recommended TDRL, for Major Depression, at 30%.  His other medical conditions were evaluated in conjunction with the Major Depression and were found to be not disqualifying for service.

He discussed his case with the MEB lawyer and it was recommended that, since he wanted to return to active duty in the future, he should accept the 30% TDRL. (He was told it was easier to get back on active duty from 30% rather than 50%).  He accepted the TDRL and worked hard on his treatment He hopes of someday returning to active duty.

After 15 months, he was re-evaluated.  At that time, he was under an unusual amount of stress due to a recent storm that caused $52,000 worth of damage to his house and personal property.  His family was forced to live in a rental house without their normal belongings for six months while the house was being rebuilt.  He did not deny that his “29 positive answers” were caused by this stress.

When he received the recommendation to be discharged with severance pay, he was appalled at the injustice.  The psychiatry “resident” gave the IFPEB the impression he was better, but not well enough to return to active duty.  He appealed the FEB and they recommended “Return to Active Duty.”  When his case was reviewed by SAF office, the Board there cited the Major Depression, the “29 positive answers”, and his other “chronic” medical conditions as the reason for medical discharge with severance pay.  If the original MEB did not find these chronic conditions disqualifying, then why does the SAF office?

As far as “equitable”, he was paid $119,256.00.  Of that amount, he had to pay the IRS $25,252.00.  The remaining $94,000.00 is being taken out of his VA disability check monthly, so this severance pay was anything but fair or equitable.  After 20 years of service (14 years active and 6 years reserve) he has nothing to show for it.  If that is what the BCMR Medical Consultant calls “proper and equitable”, he like to see what he would say if he was in his situation.

All he is asking for is an open mind in this matter.  He is still willing to serve his country and he is requesting re-evaluation of his conditions. If found to be disqualified, then medically retire him, if not then return him to active duty.

Applicant’s complete submission 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 error or injustice.  Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that the applicant’s disability processing and the final disposition of his case were in error or contrary to the governing Air Force regulations, which implement and the law.  Therefore, we agree with the opinions 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 view of the foregoing and absent evidence to the contrary, the Board finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-00980 in Executive Session on 24 February 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Mar 04, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Medical Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 6 Jan 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jan 05.