RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02531 COUNSEL:	NONE
HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His honorable discharge, for personality disorder, be changed to a medical retirement.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
At the time of his separation, he was told he was not entitled to any benefits of treatment for his medical conditions. He was hastily out-processed in one day. His 100% service connected disability rating by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) notes his depressive disorder intertwines with his personality disorder such that a clear differentiation cannot be made between the two; therefore, a medical retirement is justified.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 22 Mar 89, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.
On 4 Oct 93, the applicant’s was notified he was recommended to be discharged under authority of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for conditions that interfere with military service, specifically an adjustment disorder.

On 5 Oct 93, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge action and indicated he understood his rights to consult counsel, submit statements on his own behalf, or waive of those rights.

On 6 Oct 93, the applicant acknowledged he spoke with legal counsel and elected to not submit written statements.

On 7 Oct 93, the applicant’s commander recommended him for an honorable discharge for his adjustment disorder.

On 12 Oct 93, the administrative discharge action was found legally sufficient by the staff judge advocate and an honorable discharge was recommended.

In an undated memo, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s administrative discharge.

On 13 Oct 93, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, with a narrative reason of “personality Disorders,” and was credited with 4 years, 6 months, and 22 days of active service.

On 11 Jun 14, according to information provided by the applicant, a DVA board granted the applicant a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder with Psychotic Features, at 100%, with an effective date of 28 Sep 12 [indicated as the date the DVA received the applicant’s claim].

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The AFBCMR Clinical Mental Health Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant’s service clinical diagnosis fell into a category of disorders not considered a disability by either the Military Department or the DVA. Consequently, he was not eligible for a medical discharge via Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) under AFR 35-4, the equivalent today’s AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, and Separation. The applicant was hospitalized from 21-28 Aug 93 for what was described as paranoia and a history of suicidal ideation. In his discharge summary, the treating psychiatrist states “…longitudinal observation on the inpatient unit as well as collateral history clearly supports that there is no significant axis I disorder or evidence of a personality disorder at this time.” The applicant was discharged with a diagnosis of occupational problem. Upon return to his base of assignment, the member continued to have issues with financial management, tardiness, and interpersonal difficulties with authorities. In late September 1993, the applicant was referred for a command directed psychiatric evaluation. The evaluating psychiatrist subsequently diagnosed the applicant with Adjustment Disorder with mixed emotional features and marked narcissistic personality traits. The evaluation psychiatrist also  opined  “…member’s ability to function in the military is significantly impaired.” This evaluation was then used as the basis for the applicant’s discharge from military service for conditions that interfere with military service. The discharge action cites problematic personality and adjustment disorder.

It should be noted the applicant’s diagnosis at discharge from military service was quite different from that which was issued [by the DVA] in 2012, albeit with overlapping or shared clinical features at a given time. The applicant’s post-service diagnosis Major Depressive Disorder, is a compensable mental condition. However, at the time of the applicant’s discharge from military service, adjustment disorder was considered unsuiting for continued service, not unfitting. The diagnosis of adjustment disorder became a compensable diagnosis only with the very recent advent of the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES).

At the time of the applicant’s military service, his pattern of behavior was classified among conditions not considered a compensable disability. It is important to note that when the DVA feels a member’s disability began during military service, the effective date assigned will be the day following the individual’s date of separation from military service. In its 11 Jun 14 rating decision, The DVA granted service connection for Major Depressive Disorder with Psychotic features, made effective 28 Sep 12, and, the day following his discharge(14 Oct 93). This tells this reviewer that, while the DVA assessment found sufficient data to establish a formal diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder, there was insufficient evidence to prove existence of the full-blown diagnosis of Major Depression during the applicant’s military service or at the time of discharge.

Thus, the fact that the applicant’s underlying diagnosis has changed or evolved over time into a formal diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder, following two decades of life experiences, does not invalidate the accuracy of the assessment and conclusions reached at the time of the applicant’s final military disposition in 1993; which was based upon his observed pattern of behavior, complaints expressed by him, and clinical assessments conducted during the period of military service.

Readdressing the applicant’s implicit desire for a medical separation/retirement, the military (DES), established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law, under Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), only offer compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries which specifically rendered a member unfit for continued active service and were the cause for career termination; and then only for the degree of impairment present at the time of separation and not based on future occurrences. Again, the clinical reviewers at the time of the applicant’s service found no evidence of a disqualifying anxiety disorder that warranted a MEB and processing via a PEB.

At the same time, operating under a different set of laws (Title 38, U.S.C.), with a different purpose, the DVA is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition determined service incurred, without regard to [and independent of] its demonstrated or proven impact upon a service member’s retainability, fitness to serve, narrative reason for separation, or length of time passed

since discharge. This is the reason why an individual can be found fit for release from military service for one reason and yet sometime thereafter receive a compensation rating from the DVA for one or more service-connected, but not militarily unfitting conditions. The DVA is also empowered to conduct periodic reevaluations for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating awards (increase or decrease) as the level of impairment from a given service connected medical condition may vary (improve or worsen, affecting future employability) over the lifetime of the veteran. In summary, the Clinical Mental Health Advisor recommends denial of the applicant’s request for military medical retirement, as the applicant was appropriately diagnosed and dispositioned in accordance with regulatory guidance in place at the time.

A complete copy of the AFBCMR Clinical Mental Health Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9 Oct 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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 opinion and recommendation of the AFBCMR Mental Health Consultant and adopt its 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-2014-02531 in Executive Session on 19 Nov 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 19 Jun 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Memorandum, SAF/MRBC, dated 24 Sep 15. Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Oct 15.