RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-04248	COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Line of Duty (LOD) determination findings should be overturned based on the legal standards for prior service impairment noted in DODI 1332 .18, Disability Evaluation System, and changed to In Line of Duty (ILOD) .

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He provides a letter from AF/REI that concurs his PTSD was a direct result of his service to our country as a member of the United States Marine Corps (USMC).

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant had prior military service with the USMC Reserve. According to the applicant's DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued in conjunction with his 31 July 2003 separation, he serve in Kuwait and Iraq from 1 February 2003 through 30 May 2003.

The applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve (AFR) in 2005.

According to the applicant's DD Form 214, effective 22 March 2011, he was honorably discharged from being on active duty in the AFR with a narrative reason for separation "COMPLETION OF REQUIRED ACTIVE SERVICE" and is currently serving in the AFR in the grade of Staff Sergeant (SSgt) .

According to the applicant's AFRC IMT 348, Informal Line of Duty Determination,	dated		1 March	2015, provided	by	the	applicant, reflects		his	diagnosis		of	Neurotic		Disorders	PTSD,	which	was sustained		as a		result	of his	USMC	deployments, was	initially recommended	to		be	Existed		Prior	to	Service		(EPTS)-Service Aggravated, as annotated in Section 6 of subject form.	However, Section	9A, Medical		Review,	of		subject		form		recommends	a	new

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

finding of “EPTS-LOD Not Applicable” dated 17 July 2015. Section 11, Approving Authority Decision, of subject form decides a finding of “EPTS-LOD Not Applicable” dated 1 August 2015.

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/SGO recommends denial. The applicant confirmed his Post­ Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSO) was related to prior service and a deployment while serving with the USMC. The applicant's PTSD is currently undergoing a fitness for duty only determination.

By way of background, service aggravation while a member of the AFR is not established, as deployments with the AFR have had no permanent impact on the baseline of the condition and no exposure to combat. Prior Service Impairment (PSI) is not warranted due to the fact the condition progressed to unfitness during intervening periods while not in a military status after leaving USMC service. The applicant did not report his condition to his servicing medical unit during this interim period which he was a drilling reservist not on active duty status.

The applicant's first notification of treatment by the OVA for his PTSD to his servicing medical unit occurred 8 December 2012. However, it was not until 23 December 2014 that an informal LOO was initiated.

On 7 August 2015, the LOO was finalized by the AFRC LOD Board Approving Authority with the finding of EPTS-LOD NA. This finding indicates the condition occurred prior to the period of service and was not worsened as a result of military duties above and beyond natural progression. During a review of DVA records it was noted he sought DVA disability and treatment prior to entry into the AFR in 2005 and the traumatic event, trigger for his PTSD was prior to service in the AFR. Service Aggravation was not supported due to the fact applicant was not exposed to combat and made no mention of stressors associated with the tour to Turkey with his DVA providers during the 2 years of treatment he received after completion of the AFR specific period of service. The standards for prior service impairment as noted in DODI 1332.18 cannot be applied when the condition progresses to unfitness as the result of intervening events when the Service member was not in a duty status.

A complete copy of the AFRC/SGO evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The BCMR Psychiatric Advisor recommends denial. The question that needs to be addressed here is not whether or not the applicant had

PTSD but whether or not this condition would have been adjudicated to be of sufficient severity to have generated a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). Even if found to be the cause for career termination, a finding of In Line of Duty would be required to gain eligibility for processing		as	a	compensable	disability	by	the	Integrated Disability		Evaluation	System		(IDES) .		Otherwise,		the applicant would only be eligible for processing as a Fitness Only evaluation if the condition was found to be disqualifying. On the other hand, the Department of Veterans Affairs is authorized, under Title 38 United States Code, to offer compensation for any medical condition with a nexus with military service, without regard to its proven impact	upon	a	former		Service	member’s	fitness	to	serve, the arrative reason for release from Service		[to include conditions from prior periods	of service], or the duration	of time passed since separation.	This is the reason why an individual may be released	from	Service		for	one	reason		and		later	receive	a compensation rating for one or more medical conditions that were not	considered		militarily		unfitting	or	eligible		for	military disability processing at the time of release from military Service . The OVA is also empowered to conduct periodic re-evaluations for the	purpose	of		adjusting	the		disability		rating	determinations (increase or decrease) as the level of impairment	from a given medical condition may vary		(worsen or improve) over the lifetime of the veteran . The military Disability Evaluation System	(DES), was established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, and 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 "snapshot"		time of separation and not based on post-service progression of disease or injury .

The applicant was evaluated a year after leaving the military, he did not demonstrate serious PTSD symptomatology. The doctor gave him a PTSD diagnosis, but it is noted to be in the mild range with minor frustrations at work and his Global Assessment of Functioning
(GAF) was 63. This GAF score indicates "some mild symptoms (e.g. depressed mood and mild insomnia) or some difficulty in social, occupational or school functioning, but generally functioning pretty well, has some meaningful interpersonal relationships."

The applicant's major stressor was his first wife, who told his job that he had lied about his service in the military which resulted in an investigation that lasted over two years. The question here is whether his condition was permanently aggravated or permanently made worse during his time in the AFR , as a drilling Reservist or when serving on active duty in Turkey ; which was not a combat zone . The applicant reports that he was made worse while in Turkey, but it is clear from the questionnaire done in 2005 showed he was experiencing symptoms of PTSD at that time and there is a reference indicating that he received treatment from the Veteran's Center.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

So, any time during his time in the Reserve, whether in a duty status or not, there were possible stimuli that could have resulted in aggravation, or at least exacerbation, of his symptoms. He did complain of sleep problems after returning from Iraq and that was an ongoing problem for him. However, he was not seen again at the DVA for a psychiatric problem until 2011. Again, the fact that he has PTSD is not the issue here. It is clearly evident that he experienced a qualifying trauma while in Iraq as a Marine Reservist in 2003. The question here is whether or not his condition was sufficiently aggravated by his time in the AFR or when on active duty in 2010 when he traveled to Turkey; where he was not exposed to combat.

Another issue is whether or not his condition deteriorated to the point that it interfered with his ability to function in his job. There is every indication in the record that he could perform his job.	By his own statements to the evaluator, he was able to do his job with a minimal amount of interference from his condition. He	was	able	to	function	socially	with	a	minimal	amount	of interference and he was improving.	Had this applicant not been able to do his job or had he deteriorated to the extent that he has in his 2016 Compensation and Pension evaluation, there would be no question of his LOD.		In his 2016 evaluation, his condition was so severe as to question his ability to perform any job and his	social	interactions	were	limited	and		his	behavior	out	of control.

As the law dictates the military compensates for conditions that result in medical discharge due to the inability of the Airman to do the job, whereas the DVA is responsible for conditions that may have developed while the applicant was in the military. LOD is determined by finding deterioration in functioning due to either the development of a de novo condition, i.e., PTSD or the re­ aggravation of a previous condition , with the resultant deterioration in function while in a duty status. Other qualifiers for an In Line of Duty determination fall under Title 10 U .S.C ., Section 1207A, for members with disqualifying conditions who have achieved at least 8 years of active service; and was serving a period of 31 days or more when the condition was determined unfitting or disqualifying . What is clearly evident is that the applicant did not deteriorate before discharge and in fact was able to function with minimal disruption even a year after leaving the military. Most certainly he would not have been eligible for a MEB at the time when he left the military.

A complete copy of the BCMR Psychiatric Advisor's evaluation is at Exhibit D.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
4

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

APPLICANT 'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 28 December 2016 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit
E). 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 and the BCMR Psychiatric Advisor 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.

4.	. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

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-2015-04248 in Executive Session on 26 January 2017 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair 
, Member
, Member

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
5

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

The following documentary evidence was considered :

Exhibit A . Exhibit B . Exhibit C. Exhibit D.

Exhibit E .

DD Form 149, dated 17 May 15, w/atchs . Applicant 's Master Personnel Records . Memorandum, AFRC/SGO, dated 3 Oct 16. Memorandum, BCMR Psychiatric Advisor , dated 21 Dec 16
Letter, AFBCMR , dated 28 Dec 16.

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 with regard to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-04248 .

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
6