RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02636
INDEX CODE:  108.00
	XXXXXXXXXXXXX				COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXXXXX					HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  28 February 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

Her records be changed to show a disability discharge due to service aggravation rated at 100%, she be awarded the pay grade of senior airman (E-4), and she receive retroactive pay and entitlements.  
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She suffered a sexual assault prior to entering the service causing a post traumatic stress disorder.  Her preexisting disability did not prevent her from entering the Air Force; however, her condition was repeatedly and severely aggravated while serving on active duty.  Therefore, she should be awarded a permanent Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) disability rating at 100% to cover all mental and physical medical conditions.  In addition, she is entitled to promotion to senior airman (E-4) because she was discharged 14 days prior to receiving the promotion.  

In support of her application, the applicant provides a personal statement; certificates of recognition and appreciation; and her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 2 December 1998, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 24 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of six years.  She was trained as a Supply Journeyman and was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3).  She received one enlisted performance report for the period 2 December 1998 through 15 July 2000, with an overall rating of “5.”  On 31 March 1999, the applicant received non-judicial punishment for failure to obey a lawful general regulation by wrongfully going to a hotel in the local area.  Her punishment was reduction in grade to airman, suspended until 30 September 1999, after which time it was remitted without further action.

In March 1999, the applicant was seen in the mental health clinic for depressed mood and anxiety diagnosed as Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood.  In May 2000, she experienced a panic attack after donning a gas mask and was referred to the mental health clinic for evaluation and treatment.  The evaluation uncovered a prior to service sexual assault at age 20, a strong fear of confinement and smothering since childhood, and reoccurring episodes of depression during her teens and early twenties which were not reported by the applicant at the time of her enlistment exam.  She was referred to rape counseling and therapy to treat her apparent phobia to gas masks.  Subsequently, she was diagnosed with recurrent Major Depression beginning in adolescence that was not aggravated by service, and post traumatic stress disorder, delayed onset, caused by the pre-service sexual assault.  Following treatment, her psychiatrist determined her conditions would not improve sufficiently to become world-wide qualified for duty and referred her for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).  

On 16 January 2001, the MEB diagnosed the applicant with Major Depression, Recurrent, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The MEB referred the applicant’s case to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).  The PEB findings, dated 25 January 2001, indicated the applicant suffered from two interrelated medical conditions, both existed prior to service (EPTS) and not permanently aggravated through military service.  The PEB found the applicant unfit because both conditions are incompatible with the rigors of military service and her conditions were not compensable or ratable.  The PEB recommended the applicant be discharged under provisions other than Title 10 United States Code, Chapter 61 (i.e. without disability compensation).  

On 14 March 2001, the applicant was separated with an honorable discharge with a separation code of JFM (disability existed prior to service) and a reentry code of 2Q (personnel medically retired or discharged).  She had served 2 years, 3 months and 14 days on active duty.

DVA Rating Decisions, dated 10 August 2001 and 30 October 2003, indicates that the applicant was denied service connected disability for major depressive disorder associated with post traumatic stress disorder and fear of confinement/smothering.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the applicant’s records is warranted.  The BCMR Medical Consultant states the preponderance of the evidence does not support the applicant’s request.  

It is the opinion of the BCMR Medical Consultant that action and disposition in this case were proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.  The BCMR Medical Consultant’s 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 21 September 2005 for review and response within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 and do not find that it supports a determination that the applicant’s discharge from the Air Force was in error or unjust.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we believe the detailed comments provided by the BCMR Medical Consultant accurately address her allegations.  In view of this finding, we agree with the opinions and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and we adopt his rationale as a basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of either an error or an injustice.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this appeal.

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in Executive Session on 17 November 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number 
BC-2004-02636 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Sep 04, with attachments.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 19 Sep 05.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Sep 05.