RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:	BC-2014-01092 COUNSEL:	NONE
HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His medical retirement disability rating be increased from 30% to 100%. Specifically, he requests the AFMPC Form 134, Retirement Order, dated 14 Aug 78, and special order number AC-14544, item 12, be changed from 30% to 100%. Further, his AF Form 356, Findings and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board, dated 26 Jul 78, item 10, be changed from 30% to 100%

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
After his discharge, he was seen for several Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) reevaluations. During the most recent reevaluation, he was advised he should request a 100% disability rating because the Department of Veterans (DVA) has deemed him unemployable at 100% service connected disability. He contends he was not mentally well enough to realize the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) findings could be changed. He has always believed he didn’t need the money because he was living at home with his parents. His illness should have been apparent during the last evaluation and he needed help making that life altering decision.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 17 Jan 72, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.
On 6 Feb 74, a Medical Board referred the applicant’s diagnosis of schizophrenia, chronic, undifferentiated type, to the Physical Evaluation Board PEB.

On 14 Feb 74, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) found the applicant’s diagnosis of schizophrenic reaction, chronic undifferentiated, definite impairment of social and industrial adaptability existed prior to service (EPTS) and recommended discharge under other than Chapter 61, 10 USC with no compensable percentage.  The applicant nonconcurred with this recommendation.

On 25 Feb 74, the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) found the applicant’s diagnosis of schizophrenic reaction, chronic undifferentiated, definite impairment of social and industrial adaptability unfitting and recommended placement on the TDRL with a disability rating of 30%. The applicant concurred with the recommended.

On 27 Mar 74, the applicant was retired from active duty with 2 years, 2 months and 11 days of active service.

On 28 Mar 74, the applicant was placed on the TDRL.
On 12 Sep 75, the applicant’s status on the TDRL was reexamined and it was recommended he remain on the TDRL.

On 3 Feb 77, the applicant’s status on the TDRL was reexamined and it was recommended he remain on the TDRL.

On 26 Jul 78, the applicant’s status on the TDRL was reexamined and it was recommended he be permanently retired with compensable percentage of 30.

On 31 Aug 78, the applicant was removed from the TDRL and permanently retired with a compensable disability of 30%.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are included at Exhibits C and D.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPFD recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. As background, the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs (ÐVA) disability evaluation systems operate under separate laws. Under Title 10, USC, Physical Evaluation Boards must determine if a member’s condition renders them unfit for continued military service relating to their office, grade, rank or rating. The fact that a person may have a medical condition does not mean that the condition is unfitting for continued military service. To be unfitting, the condition must be such that it alone precludes the member from fulfilling their military duties. If the board renders a finding of unfit, the law provides appropriate compensation due to the premature termination of their career. Further, Air Force disability boards must rate disabilities based on the member’s condition at the time of evaluation; in essence a snapshot of their condition at that time. It is the charge of the DVA to pick up where the AF must, by law, leave off. Under Title 38, the DVA may rate any service-connected condition based upon future employability or reevaluate based on changes in the severity of a condition.  This often results in different ratings by the two

agencies. While the applicant notes the DVA has rated him at 100% due to him being unemployable, he does not supply any documents in support of that statement. It is recommended to deny the applicant’s request as the preponderance of evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the disability process of his case in 1974.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C.
The AFBMCR Clinical Psychology Consultant recommends granting relief, indicating there is evidence of an error or injustice. In his application to the board, the applicant explains the lack of timeliness with regard to filing an application to the BCMR was due to his not being well enough to realize the findings of a PEB could be changed. The Clinical Psychology Consultant is aware of the cognitive disruptions that may occur in individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia and finds it conceivable that someone with this diagnosis who is also unfamiliar with the PEB process may not comprehend his rights fully. However, it cannot be overlooked the applicant comprehended the implications of an initial 10% disability rating issued by the Informal PEB in 1974 enough to express disagreement and successfully appeal to the Formal PEB.

The applicant was diagnosed with a mental health condition that was consistently deemed to be severely impairing for military service and at least moderately impairing for social and industrial functioning. This Consultant opines that a review of the criteria associated with each rating within the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) does not support his contention he should have received a 100% disability rating upon discharge from the Air Force. Features typically associated with this rating level include, but are not limited to, total occupational and social impairment. As noted within the TDRL reevaluations, the applicant was able to obtain work intermittently, attend college courses, and socialize at a bar. By the last evaluation he was involved in a steady romantic relationship. This Consultant also observes the features typically associated with a 30% rating do not appear to most accurately reflect his status at the time his final evaluation was completed. Specifically, this rating implies occasional decreased work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks. This Consultant concludes from a review of each TDRL reevaluation that the applicant’s mental status at the time of his last assessment represents a substantial decline in social and industrial functioning. Although the applicant was not actively involved in treatment at any point, the record appears to reflect efforts on his part to self-medicate symptoms through alcohol use. The applicant’s thought processes and thought content were not noted to be so severely deficient as to render him totally impaired nor interfering with most areas of life. However, it appears more likely than not that his mental health had declined enough to have a significant negative impact on his reliability and productivity at  work.     Given  the  potentially  pernicious  effect  of

schizophrenia, this Consultant is not startled to read the applicant’s claim that he is currently rated as 100% disabled by the DVA. However, it is also this Consultant’s opinion that the change in symptom impact over the last few decades represents progression of the disorder. As such, the Military Department, operating under Title 10 U.S.C., is not permitted to rate this progression but must rely on its understanding of the applicant’s condition at the “snap shot” in time in which the applicant was separated from military service.

IAW Title 38 U.S.C., the DVA picks up where the Military Department, by law, must leave off. The DVA is authorized to offer service connection and compensation for any medical condition for which it has established a nexus with military service regardless of the narrative reason for separation or the length of time transpired since discharge. The DVA is also authorized to conduct periodic reassessments of a veteran’s disability and adjust its ratings accordingly.

The Clinical Psychology Consultant argues the applicant has not met the burden of proof to conclude a 100% rating for schizophrenia most accurately reflects the status of his disability when he was permanently retired from the Air Force. Nevertheless, this Consultant also argues the 30% disability rating at permanent retirement was an underrepresentation of the applicant’s functioning. It is recommended the Board grant the applicant relief in the form of an increased disability rating, retroactive to the date of his permanent retirement from military service. As a courtesy and suggestion only, the  Clinical Psychology Consultant advises the Board that a rating of 50% from the VASRD is most closely aligned with descriptions of the applicant’s functioning at the time of his final TDRL reevaluation. The Board is reminded the Clinical Psychology Consultant bases each recommendation on the basis of the evidence found in each case. A recommendation from this case is not intended to serve as a precedent to be used for adjudication of future, unrelated appeals to the BCMR.

A complete copy of the SAF/MRBC evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies	of	the	Air	Force	evaluations	were	forwarded	to	the applicant on 28 Jul 14 and 22 Jun 15 for review and comment within
30 days (Exhibits E and F).	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.	Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, we believe the applicant is the victim of an error or injustice. While we note the comments of AFPC/DPFD indicating that relief should be denied because the applicant’s records contain no documentation substantiating the applicant’s contention his disability percentage should be increased, we believe a preponderance of the evidence substantiates that partial corrective action is warranted. In this respect, we note the opinion of the Clinical Psychology Consultant finds the applicant has not met the burden of proof he was 100 percent disabled at the time of separation, noting the progressive deterioration of his mental condition post-service. However, the  applicant’s  30 percent disability rating was an underrepresentation of his disability at the time of separation and a disability rating of 50 percent is more appropriate. Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating  to  the  APPLICANT  be  corrected  to  show  that  on
31 August 1978, he was removed from the Temporary Disability Retired List and transferred to the Permanent Disability Retired List, with a compensable rating of 50 percent for physical disability.

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-01092 in Executive Session on 28 Jul 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member

All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-01092 was considered:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 8 Mar 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Memorandum, AFPC/DPFDD, dated 15 Apr 14. Exhibit D.	Memorandum, SAF/MRBC, dated 10 Jun 15 Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jul 14.
Exhibit F.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Jun 15.