RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02553

  						COUNSEL:  YES

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her discharge be changed to a medical retirement.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Through counsel, she should have been referred to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and Informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) based on her prolonged treatment while on active duty for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), workplace stressors, and migraine headaches which resulted in her being unfit for duty and non-deployable.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 23 Sep 03, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force.

On 19 Jan 12, the applicant applied for voluntary separation due to pregnancy with a requested separation date of 31 Aug 12 which was subsequently approved by the Total Force Service Center on 11 Apr 12.

On 31 Aug 12, she was furnished an honorable discharge with a narrative reason for separation “pregnancy or childbirth,” a separation code “KDF” (service member initiated discharge allowed by established directive to a female member for pregnancy or childbirth), and was credited with 8 years, 11 months, and 8 days of active service.  

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating the applicant has not met the burden of proof of an error or an injustice that warrants a MEB, followed by an unfit finding by a PEB, and a medical retirement.  The applicant clearly experienced a documented mood disorder during her military service; first characterized as an Adjustment Disorder, then ultimately as a Major Depressive Disorder.  A review of the supplied evidence revealed at least two instances when the applicant’s retainability may be been brought into question; one in which the provider stated she was not worldwide qualified from a mental health perspective.  She was also, at least twice, placed on mobility restrictions, but not of a sufficiently sustained duration that would trigger a MEB.  A diagnosis does not automatically infer unfitness for continued military service and that there are basic determinants of unfitness that have not been clearly or objectively met in the applicant’s case; not just the fact that she was prescribed an antidepressant, but significantly based upon her ability to perform the duties of her office, grade, rank, and rating.  Additionally, insufficient evidence is supplied to indicate that a deterioration in the applicant’s duty performance occurred and that said deterioration was the result of a Depressive Disorder.  

A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The BCMR Psychiatric Consultant recommends denial indicating the decisions of the military department did not represent an error or an injustice.  The applicant carried no sustained profiles, no AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report, marked as code “37” that required MEB/PEB action, and was only restricted from deployment for relative brief periods (not exceeding 90 days), thus she never reached the point where her providers felt that referral for MEB would be appropriate.  In order to maintain a fit and vital force, the Secretary of the Air Force relies on statutory authorization (10 U.S.C., Chapter 61) to remove service members from service who can no longer perform their military duties because of a mental or physical defect.  If a service member’s identified medical diagnosis, condition or physical or mental limitation prohibits or limits the individual from completing his or her duties and/or routinely interferes with his or her ability to obtain complete individual deployment readiness or worldwide duty reassignment qualification, and/or imposes unreasonable requirements on the military to either maintain or protect the member, the service member may be separated, discharged or retired.  Based on the applicant’s exceptional duty performance, there is no indication that her condition had affected her duty function or posed risk to the mission.

A complete copy of the BCMR Psychiatric Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant, through counsel, refutes virtually every point made by the medical consultants and argues the Board should disregard the recommendation by the Medical Advisor.  Counsel states the issue before the Board is whether there was an error or injustice in the failure to refer the applicant for the unfitting medical condition in accordance with relevant Air Force regulations and it is irrelevant she was nearing separation.  The commander and physician failed to refer the applicant for a MEB after she clearly experienced a documented mood disorder during her military service, was heavily medicated, non-worldwide qualified, non-deployable, and placed on multiple profiles.  

The counsel’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.  

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 BCMR Medical and Psychiatric Consultants 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-2015-02553 in Executive Session on 18 Oct 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 May 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, Medical Consultant, dated 18 Nov 15.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, Psychiatric Consultant, 
  dated 23 Aug 16.
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 Aug 16.
Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Sep 16, w/atchs.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.