RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00807 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. He receives Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration to the grade of Colonel (O-6), by the Calendar Year (CY) 10C Below- the-Promotion Zone (BPZ), CY11B In-the-Promotion Zone (IPZ), and CY12B Above-the-Promotion Zone (APZ) Colonel Central Selection Boards (CSBs). 2. His diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) be considered an “unfit” condition and he be medically retired from the Air Force. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was erroneously diagnosed with Bi-Polar Disorder when he sought treatment for PTSD from combat operations. The misdiagnosis error disqualified him from promotion and had he been correctly diagnosed, he would have been promoted but instead, he competed against other airmen not suffering from PTSD. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 11 Oct 13, the applicant was referred to a Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) for PTSD, cervical spine degenerative joint disease, and degenerative lumbar disc disease. The PEB found the applicant’s condition unfitting and recommended a temporary retirement with a 60 percent compensable disability rating. On 19 Dec 13, the Secretary of the Air Force directed the applicant be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL), with a disability rating of 60 percent under the provisions of 10 USC § 1202. On 6 Jan 14, the Air Force Disability Evaluation System (DES) Attorney recommended the applicant’s disability rating for his diagnosis of PTSD be increased from 60 percent to 70 percent due to demonstrated symptoms of suicidal ideation, difficulty adapting to stressful circumstances, occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, and near-continuous panic or depression affecting the ability to function independently, appropriately and effectively. On 27 Nov 14, the applicant was released from active duty and placed on the TDRL in the grade of Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col, O-5), for physical disability with a disability rating of 80 percent, effective 28 Nov 14. He was credited with 22 years, 7 months, and 12 days of total active service. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial, indicating the applicant’s medical condition was not part of the promotion decision. The medical issues on eligible officers are not part of the Officer Selection Record (OSR) or Officer Selection Brief (OSB) reviewed by the board members at either CSBs or SSBs. The only way board members would know is if the officer wrote a letter to the board and advised them of such. A review of the applicant’s record did not reveal he wrote a letter to the contested board. The applicant was non-selected for promotion to the grade of colonel by the P0611B IPZ and the P0612B APZ Colonel CSBs. Additionally, on 9 Dec 13, he was non-selected for retention by the Selective Early Retirement Board (SERB). The complete DPFDC evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reiterates his request to receive SSB consideration to the grade of colonel due to his misdiagnosis of PTSD. He asserts that the Officer Evaluation process is highly subjective and relies on factual information to make sound judgments but his chain had bad information that was critical to the decision process. So he requests that he be provided a re- boarding for CY11, CY12, and CY13 using supporting OPRs and PRFs consistent with his previous IPZ boards to the grade of major and Lt Col. He admits that these are complicated circumstances and he does not blame his chain of command for what happened nor the Air Force. His chain of command acted reasonably given the information they were provided. So he is asking the Board to set the record straight. Additionally, the applicant has provided a signed typed statement from his wife expressing how this situation has impacted her husband and their family. She asserts that undiagnosed PTSD destroys lives, families, and societies at large. She believes that airmen are prevented from seeking help due to the mental health stigmas and fear of career loss and asserts that the AFBCMR is propagating by refusal to take corrective actions. She goes on to point out that although the Air Force Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) asserts that the promotion process was/is unaffected by medical issues or injuries to the applicant, she believes her husband’s records and ratings have definitely been affected by his long-term exposure to combat operations resulting in a breakdown in performance that was exacerbated by medical mistreatment, misinformation, and the resulting massive drug reactions that nearly took his life. She believes the biggest factor bearing on this case is the negative impact of medical information provided to her husband’s rating officials over the past 3½ years, and had that not been so, her husband’s career might have been saved and he would have had a reasonable opportunity for promotion. She describes in detail how subsequent to her husband’s deployment, she witnessed him suffering from this disease and the drugs prescribed from the misdiagnosis of the disease. She states the doctor’s failure to recognize medication side effects and serious allergic reactions nearly cost her husband his life (Exhibit E). ________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant recommends denial, indicating there is no clear association in fact or evidence that the diagnosis of bipolar disorder caused the applicant to be passed over for promotion, nor evidence or proof that he would have been promoted had he, instead, carried the diagnosis of PTSD at the time promotion boards were held. The applicant’s behavior and symptomatology which led to multiple psychiatric hospitalizations would be sufficient to suspend any service member’s access to classified materials, involvement in sensitive operations and admission to facilities in which such work is accomplished regardless of the diagnosis given. There is little evidence to support the contention that obvious signs of PTSD were missed by medical providers. However, there is clear documentation that several medical providers believed the applicant could benefit from psychological intervention and had made this recommendation on various occasions. The applicant, now retired for an unfitting mental health diagnosis, has received lengthy treatment for PTSD yet does not desire a return to duty. The applicant’s concerns related to the “process” of promotion and the potential for a service member’s mental health condition to negatively impact duty performance are acknowledged. However, the DES exists, at least in part, to allow the Military Department to compensate a service member whose career may otherwise be in jeopardy because a disability causes him or her to be unable to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, as described in DODI 1332.38 (in effect at the time of the applicant’s MEB processing). Thus, the whole of the Military Department’s various medical and personnel processes appear to have functioned as intended in this case using information available at the time. On 11 Oct 13, the FPEB listed PTSD as an unfitting condition specified as being incurred in a combat zone but not combat related with a 50 percent disability compensation rating. The applicant was assessed a 60 percent overall compensable rating. Special Order ACD-02156 relieved the applicant from active duty, effective 27 Nov 2014 [sic], with a total of 22 years 7 months and 12 days of active service for retirement. The complete BCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 14 Jun 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit G). 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 excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. While the statements provided in support of his appeal are noted, he has not provided substantial evidence which, in our opinion, successfully refutes the assessment of his case by the Air Force Offices of Primary Responsibility. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the AF OPR and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of either an error or an injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the 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-2014-00807 in Executive Session on 14 Jul 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Jan 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 18 Apr 14, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Nov 14. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Nov 14, w/atch. Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant, dated 8 Jun 15.