RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04166 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His separation code of JFL which denotes “Disability, Severance Pay” be changed to HFT which denotes “Physical Standards.” APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He has suffered from severe shoulder and neck pain since 8 November 2011, which prevented him from passing his Fitness Assessment (FA). The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) granted him a 20 percent disability rating for his shoulder/neck pain. He also suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and the DVA granted him a 50 percent disability rating. Instead of being separated for not meeting standards, he should have been separated for his disabilities. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 23 July 1998, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 23 July 2012, the applicant’s commander notified him that she was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen. The specific reason for this action was his failure to meet minimum fitness standards as evidenced by four FA failures. On 23 July 2012, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification. On 14 August 2012, the discharge authority directed the applicant be separated from the Air Force with an honorable discharge. On 28 August 2012, the applicant received an honorable discharge, and was credited with 15 years, 1 month, and 6 days of active service. His separation code (HFT) and corresponding narrative reason for separation is “Physical Standards.” The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), the BCMR Medical Consultant and the BCMR Psychiatric Consultant, which are attached at Exhibits C-E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFD recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) never received a referral for the applicant. Therefore, he could not have been processed for a medical separation or retirement. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The military Disability Evaluation System, 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 progression of disease or injury. The applicant was evaluated and treated for Alcohol Dependence, Anxiety Disorder, PTSD, right shoulder pain, and left ankle pain. However, the preponderance of objective evidence of record raises doubt that the applicant’s ailments were so severe, in extent or duration, as to disqualify him from worldwide duty or to warrant referral for Medical Evaluation Board (MEB)/PEB processing. This is borne out in the determination that his Alcohol Dependence and PTSD were found in remission, that his shoulder ailment did not require surgical intervention, that he denied neck pain, and that his ankle examination was found to be normal. This also includes the fact that no AF Forms 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report, are presented to depict a check mark in block “37” to indicate MEB/PEB processing was required for any of his medical conditions. With respect to the applicant’s failed FA, the BCMR Medical Consultant acknowledges the possibility that the applicant’s ankle and shoulder ailments might have precluded performance of certain aspects of the FA; but did not exempt him from performing and passing any remaining portion(s) of the FA, e.g., abdominal circumference. Thus, based upon the preponderance of supplied objective medical evidence, the Medical Consultant found no medical condition that should have been the cause of career termination. On the other hand, 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, or narrative reason for separation. With this in mind, Title 38, U.S.C. allows awarding compensation ratings for conditions that were not unfitting during military service or at the time of separation. This is the reason why an individual can be found fit for release from military service for one reason and yet sometime thereafter receive compensation ratings from the DVA for one or more service-connected, but militarily non-unfitting conditions. The DVA is also empowered to conduct periodic re-evaluations for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating awards 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. A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit D. The BCMR Psychiatric Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. As evidenced from the applicant’s medical records, he had a traumatic childhood and some behavioral health issues even prior to his first deployment and formal enrollment in behavioral health treatment. In 2009, the applicant was formally evaluated and treated for anxiety disorder and alcohol abuse after returning from his first deployment. Due to the medication management, alcohol dependence treatment, psychotherapeutic interventions and the applicant’s high level of motivation, his symptoms had largely resolved by his second deployment in 2011. Upon returning from his second deployment in 2011, his symptoms of anxiety resurfaced and eventually worsened to fully blown PTSD. His psychiatrist had continued with the medication changes and the applicant completed a course of Cognitive Processing Therapy, which is evidence based treatment for PTSD. The applicant responded positively to the interventions and by April 2012 his PTSD resolved leaving only some mild residual symptoms. Even when the applicant was dealing with the stressors of his administrative discharge, he remained sober despite the changes and stressors in his life. The BCMR Psychiatric Consultant recognizes the sacrifices the applicant has made for this country and appreciates his service. It is fortunate that he is eligible to continue his treatment through the DVA. However, after a careful review of all the evidence, the applicant’s PTSD was in remission at the time of his discharge. Therefore, even though the DVA has granted compensation for the applicant’s PTSD, this evidence does not invalidate the appropriateness of the military discharge disposition, which was based upon the applicant’s condition at the time of his release from military service. A complete copy of the BCMR Psychiatric Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 1 March 2016, copies off the Air Force, BCMR Medical Consultant, and BCMR Psychiatric Consultant evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit 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 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 OPR, the BCMR Medical Consultant and the BCMR Psychiatric Consult 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-2014-04166 in Executive Session on 19 April 2016, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-04166 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 October 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPFD, dated 29 October 2014. Exhibit D. Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 3 April 2015. Exhibit E. Memorandum, BCMR Psychiatric Consultant, dated 23 February 2016. Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 March 2016