RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05878 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His administrative discharge be changed to a medical retirement. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: During his last two years of service, he suffered from anxiety and depression which affected his ability to pass his Fitness Assessments (FA) and ultimately led to his being discharged. He was also diagnosed with sleep apnea prior to his discharge. His Primary Care Manager (PCM) initially requested a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) for his medical condition; but he believes his commander interfered with the process which resulted in him not receiving a proper diagnosis or support from his mental health provider. He had to seek treatment off base because his commander and mental health provider believed he was faking his mental health issues. He sought advice from his mental health provider regarding an MEB, but was told because his treatment was not on base; it was not admissible in an Air Force MEB. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 19 Apr 00, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the Regular Air Force. On 27 Apr 11, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for Unsatisfactory Duty Performance – Failure to Meet Minimum Fitness Standards. The specific reasons for the discharge action were: a. On 26 Feb 09, the applicant failed to meet minimum fitness standards by scoring a composite score of 45.40 points on his Fitness Assessment (FA), which was below the minimum required composite score of 75 points. b. On 26 May 09, the applicant failed to meet minimum fitness standards by scoring a composite score of 69.80 points on his FA, which was below the minimum required composite score of 75 points. c. On 24 Aug 09, the applicant failed to meet minimum fitness standards by scoring a composite score of 74.20 points on his FA, which was below the minimum required composite score of 75 points. d. On 5 Jan 11, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failing to meet the minimum fitness standards by scoring a composite score of 57.00 points on his 10 Dec 10 FA, which was below the minimum required composite score of 75 points. e. On 6 Apr 11, the applicant received a LOR and a Unfavorable Information File (UIF) was established for his failing to meet minimum fitness standards by scoring a composite score of 18.60 points on his 5 Apr 11 FA, which was below the minimum required composite score of 75 points. On 18 May 11, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant waived his right to an administrative discharge board. The legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support separation and recommended the applicant be furnished an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 25 May 11, the discharge authority directed the applicant be furnished an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 10 Jun 11, the applicant was so discharged and credited with 11 years, 1 month, and 22 days of active service. Per AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program, a commander may recommend discharge once a service member receives four unsatisfactory FA scores in a 24-month period. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. A commander may invalidate FA results if the individual provides medical documentation validating the existence of an illness or injury. The commander must provide written notification to the Fitness Assessment Cell (FAC) when invalidating FA results. The applicant did not provide any medical documentation confirming he had a medical issue precluding him from passing his FA or written notification from his commander invalidating the FA. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial noting the documentation in the applicant’s master personnel records indicates the discharge, to include the type of separation, separation code, narrative reason for separation, and character of service was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant has not provided any evidence or identified any errors in the processing of his discharge. The applicant by receiving four unsatisfactory FAs in a 24-month period and failed to meet and maintain AF fitness standards. His unit’s attempts to rehabilitate him through administrative means were unsuccessful. He was provided ample opportunities to comply with fitness standards. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The applicant has not provided any evidence showing he had a medical condition which rendered him unfit for continued military service. Although his records contain entries which suggest he exhibited symptoms of an anxiety disorder during certain periods throughout his enlistment, there is no evidence that the condition was of such severity that it interfered with his ability to perform his assigned duties or was the cause of his FA failures. The applicant’s medical records do not contain any psychological profiles, mental health evaluations or other clinical/mental health documentation that would substantiate his claim of an unfitting mental disorder as the reason for his FA failures. While the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) has awarded him a service connection for agoraphobia, Gulf War, Incurred, there is no evidence that this condition was the cause of his repeated FA failures. A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 21 Jul 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Psychology Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. There was no evidence provided or in the applicant’s medical record that would substantiate that he should have been medically retired rather than administratively discharged. The applicant first encountered mental health on 18 Jun 07 with complaints of depression associated with a marital separation and was subsequently diagnosed with major depression. His records also noted smoking and overeating. During his Nov 08 post deployment evaluation the applicant reported stress due to his pending divorce. He was offered a mental health referral but declined. On 24 Nov 09, the applicant was seen by primary care for chest pain that he attributed to the pressure he felt during his fitness assessment after multiple failures. On 18 Jun 10, he was seen by primary care and it was noted the he was not taking his medication because it made him drowsy. He further reported he had been experiencing persistent panic attacks for nine months and believed it was associated with him thinking about running. While he reported the panic attacks were significant and were occurring daily, he did not seek any treatment. The applicant indicated he had an upcoming fitness assessment that was exacerbating his anxiety and that he underwent a stress test which required monitoring afterwards due to his elevated pulse. The medical notes from the stress test revealed the applicant’s functional capacity, heart rate, and blood pressure were all normal and the overall test was negative. On 30 Jun 10, it was noted the applicant had some improvement with his anxiety with the use of medication. In Jan 11, he reported to primary care that he was unable to do the sit up portion of his fitness assessment due to his heart racing, sweating, and difficulty breathing. The applicant had a pattern of difficulty with his FAs for much of his military career as well the ability to bounce back from receiving a poor FA score and obtain a passing FA score. Despite his struggles with his FAs, his service record clearly shows he performed well in the duties required of his Air Force specialty code (AFSC). It is clear from documentation found in the medical record that consideration was given to the applicant as he continued to fail multiple FAs. Furthermore, the medical documentation does not support the applicant’s mental health condition met the threshold necessary for consideration through military disability evaluation systems (MDES). There is no evidence to override the conclusions that the applicant was medically fit for service at the time of his administrative discharge. The Psychology Consultant notes the applicant’s initial ratings provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for panic disorder and major depression; however, the MDES operates under Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.) and bases its actions upon the evidence present at the “snap shot” in time of final military disposition. The DVA, operating under a different set of laws with a different purpose, is authorized to offer service connection and compensation for any medical condition for which it has established a nexus with military service, without regard to the narrative reason for release from service or the length of time transpired since discharge. The DVA is also empowered to conduct periodic reevaluations for the purpose of adjusting the disability ratings at the level of impairment for a given medical condition may vary over the lifetime of the veteran. A complete copy of the AFBCMR Psychology Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit G. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 11 May 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit H). 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 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 opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), the AFBCMR Medical Consultant, and the AFBCMR Psychological Consultant and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. 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-2013-05878 in Executive Session on 15 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 10 Dec 13. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 24 Mar 14. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 17 Apr 14. Exhibit E. Memorandum, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 25 Jun 14. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jul 14. Exhibit G. Memorandum, AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant, dated 8 May 15.