RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-01831
				INDEX CODE:  108.00
				COUNSEL:  NONE
				HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His honorable discharge be change to a medical retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His records show he was released for failure to advance.  He believes his failure to advance was the result of a mental health condition  which he believes should have been presented to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for a determination of fitness or medical retirement.

In support of his appeal, applicant submits a copy of his DD Forms 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and documentation extracted from his Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and military medical and personnel records.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 25 Jun 73, the applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant having assumed the grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Aug 82.

On 10 Jul 86, he was notified and acknowledged receipt of his ineligibility to reenlist.

On 19 Dec 86, his commander nonrecommended him for promotion to technical sergeant based on his failure to progress in upgrade training.  He acknowledged receipt of the notification for nonrecommendation.

He underwent a mental health evaluation on 29 Feb 84, due to his inability to advance in upgrade training and complaints of anxiety when working around aircraft.  The evaluation revealed no signs of a mental disorder that warranted a referral to the MEB or a involuntary administrative action.  The mental health provider acknowledged the applicant would be a good candidate for cross training.  He underwent another mental health evaluation on 30 Jul 86.  He was diagnosed with atypical anxiety disorder.  The prognosis for improvement around moving machinery parts was poor and it was suggested he be considered for discharge.

On 30 Apr 87, he was honorably discharged under the Early Release Program - Strength Reduction.  He served 13 years, 10 months and 5 days on active duty.

As of 22 Sep 04, he has received a 100 percent disability rating with service connection for his anxiety disorder from the DVA.

On 22 Sep 08, the applicant requested an extension to provide a response to the advisory opinion.  On 8 Oct 08, the Board staff informed the applicant that his request for an extension of time could not be granted and requested he administratively close his case until such time as he was able to proceed.  On 19 Feb 09, the Board staff informed the applicant that his case had been administratively closed and to contact the AFBCMR in writing once he was ready to proceed.

It appears the applicant is requesting his case be reopened via an inquiry from his congressional representative.  In support of his request a copy of his mental health evaluation was attached.
_________________________________________________________________

AFBCMR MEDICAL CONSULTANT EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s request for his honorable discharge to be changed to a medical retirement.  The Medical Consultant states the applicant had anxiety-related issues that affected his ability to perform his military duties. Initially, in 1984 there was no diagnosable mental disorder; however, from 1986 and thereafter, the applicant carried a diagnosis of atypical anxiety disorder.  There is no evidence of record that the applicant's health care providers intended to refer him for processing through the Military Disability Evaluation System (MDES).  The applicant's mental health providers recommended administrative discharge or cross-training. Since the applicant's inability to function in his occupation likely emanated from his anxiety disorder, then it is reasonable to conclude the applicant's case should have been referred through the MDES for this ratable and compensable Axis I clinical diagnosis; a diagnosis which appears to have contributed to cutting short his Air Force career. Had the applicant been 
referred through the MDES, he more likely than not would have been found unfit for further military service. Based upon the format of the mental health assessments of record the Medical Consultant finds no objective criteria upon which to apply a likely disability rating. However, it is noted that nineteen months following the applicant's discharge the DVA rated his anxiety disorder at 0%.  Therefore, it is unlikely that the severity of his anxiety disorder at the time of discharge was severe enough to warrant the medical retirement. The Medical Consultant acknowledges the applicant has not requested an alternative recommendation for discharge with severance pay, but opines that based upon a preponderance of evidence the applicant would have been discharged with severance pay with, at best, a 10% disability rating. The Board and the applicant are reminded there is no quantifiable difference in severance pay received for conditions rated at 0%, l0%, or 20% under the MDES.  The applicant's atypical anxiety disorder manifested through a fear of operating near or around machinery and aircraft should not be considered an unsuiting condition, as would a "fear of flying."  Unlike the MDES, the DVA operates under different set of laws (Title 38, United States Code), which authorizes the award of disability compensation for any service connected medical condition without regard to its impact upon a servicemember's retainability or its impact upon job performance.  The DVA is empowered to periodically re-evaluate veterans for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating award, should the severity of a particular medical condition vary over time. In conclusion, the Medical Consultant believes the applicant's command officials properly followed established procedures in executing the applicant's discharge. There is, however, some question of an error in the decision by medical officials not to pursue a medical basis for discharge.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant's evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AFBCMR MEDICAL CONSULTANT EVALUATION:

On 5 Sep 08, a copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant's evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  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 waive the failure to timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission, to include the information provided by his congressional representative, in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. After reviewing the documentation submitted and the evidence of record we find no evidence to reflect the applicant’s anxiety disorder was of such severity to warrant a medical retirement.   We believe the applicant’s chain of command properly discharged the applicant in accordance with the governing instructions.  We note that 19 months after the applicant’s discharge the DVA rated his anxiety disorder at 0%.  We further note the applicant currently has a combined DVA disability rating of 100%.  Former servicemembers are authorized treatment from the DVA under the provisions of Title 38, USC; which, allows the DVA to provide compensation for servicemembers who incur a service-connected medical condition while on active duty and to increase or decrease the disability rating based on the seriousness of medical condition throughout the former servicemember’s life span.  Whereas the Air Force, under Title 10, USC, rates a member’s condition at the time of separation.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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-2008-01831 in Executive Session on 23 Nov 10, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-01831 was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 12 May 08, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFBCMR, Medical Consultant, dated
				3 Sep 08.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Sep 08.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Sep 08.
	Exhibit F.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Oct 08.
	Exhibit G.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Feb 09.
	Exhibit H.	Letter, Congressman XXXX, dated 6 Aug 10,
				w/atchs.

					 
					Panel Chair