RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00098 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Mental Health (MH) diagnosis be included as an unfitting and compensable condition. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He received a MH diagnosis in Sep to Oct 02 timeframe that was not considered. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 3 Apr 84, the applicant entered active duty. According to AF Form 618, Medical Board Report, dated 20 Sep 00, the applicant was referred to the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) for diagnosis of lumbar spondylosis with degenerative disk disease. According to AF Form 356, Findings and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board, dated 13 Oct 00, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) determined his medical condition did not prevent him from performing less strenuous duties commensurate with his office, grade, rank or rating. The IPEB found the applicant fit and recommended he be returned to duty. According to a Medical Narrative Summary (NARSUM) dated 12 Mar 02, his Primary Care Manager (PCM) recommended that he be medically boarded out of the military as it was doubtful he would ever be able to work full days again based on the duration of his symptoms and the worsening of his symptoms as a result of chronic low back pain with degenerative disk disease. According to a letter dated 3 Apr 02, the PEB returned the MEB recommendation on the applicant requesting a neurology consult and appropriate psychiatric profile. According to a NARSUM dated 3 Jul 02, he was evaluated by MH on 28 Jun 02 and his final diagnosis was “depression secondary to general medical condition, now resolved.” The NARSUM further states there was no contribution of any underlying psychiatric diagnosis, which would impact his diagnosis of chronic back pain. He has experienced a depressive episode as a result of his chronic pain, which at this time is resolved. According to AF Form 1180, Action on Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Findings and Recommended Disposition, on 8 Aug 02, the applicant non-concurred with the IPEB recommendation that he be Discharged With Severance Pay (DWSP) with a 20 percent disability rating for chronic low back pain with degenerative disk disease and requested a formal hearing. According to AF Form 356, Findings and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board, dated 5 Sep 02, the Formal PEB (FPEB) recommended the applicant be permanently retired with compensable percentage of 40 percent for an unfitting condition of “chronic low back pain secondary to degenerative disk disease.” According to AF Form 1180, dated 5 Sep 02, the applicant concurred with the findings and recommendation of the FPEB. On 12 Sep 02, the Secretary of the Air Force directed the applicant be permanently retired under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 1201. According to Special Order Number ACD-01012, dated 30 Sep 02, he was retired on 16 Nov 02 in the pay grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt, E-6) with a compensable percentage of physical disability of 40 percent. His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, reflects a narrative reason for separation of “Permanent Disability.” He served 18 years, 7 months and 13 days on active duty. On 30 Jan 03, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rated the applicant at a compensable percentage of 90 percent for service connected disability for conditions of degenerative joint disease, chronic muscle tension type headaches, stone disease secondary to gout, gouty arthritis, hypertension, residuals, arthroscopic arthrotomy, tinnitus, chronic sinusitis, rhinitis and eczema. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR) Special Review Panel (SRP) recommends there be no change of the applicant’s disability and permanent disability retirement determination. After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of evidence, the SRP concluded that there was insufficient cause to recommend a change for the condition, and therefore, no disability ratings can be recommended. The SRP first determined if any MH diagnoses were changed during the Disability Evaluation Process (DES). The first MEB performed on 19 Sep 00 did not refer a MH diagnosis. His profile on 18 Mar 02 did not have a MH condition and had a psychiatric level 1 (S1) profile. The NARSUM dated 12 Mar 02, mentioned a memory problem thought to be due to pain and daily use of narcotic medications. The MEB psychiatric evaluation consultation on 28 Jun 02 documented an Axis 1 diagnosis of depression secondary to general medical condition, now resolved. The neurology MEB performed on 28 Jun 02 also did not document a MH diagnosis but recommended higher dose anti-depressants and lower dose, to no opiates, for pain control. Further, the MEB performed on 16 Jul 02 and the FPEB performed on 5 Sep 02 did not include a MH diagnosis. After consideration of the evidence, and full review of the medical record, the SRP determined that no MH diagnoses were changed to the applicant’s possible disadvantage in the DES process. Therefore, the applicant did not meet the inclusion criteria in the Terms of Reference for the MH Review Project. The MH condition, depression secondary to general medical condition, now resolved, was reviewed and considered by the SRP. The psychiatric consultation for the MEB addendum performed on 28 Jun 02 documented a history of depressed mood, irritability, poor sleep, energy, interest, concentration and guilt for a period of several months with the precipitant being the back pain which improved once placed on profile, and working half days. At the time of the consultation, he did not endorse symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). A MH status examination revealed a neatly groomed, pleasant, cooperative individual who was uncertain as to why he needed to be seen in the clinic. The MH condition was resolved, was not profiled, and was not mentioned in the commander’s statement or the MEB references and statements. There was no indication that the MH condition interfered with the applicant’s performance of his military duties. The complete PDBR SRP evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 9 Jan 14, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has not received a response. ________________________________________________________________ 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. 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 he was improperly retired from active duty. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR) Special Review Panel (SRP) and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has been the victim of an error or injustice. In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to favorably consider the applicant’s request. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that 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 Docket Number BC- 2014-00098 in Executive Session on 21 Oct 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2014-00098 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 May 13 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records Exhibit C. Letter, PDBR SRP, dated 31 Dec 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jan 14.