RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-02426 

   						COUNSEL:  

HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS:

His medical separation based on a 10 percent disability rating be changed to a medical retirement with a 100 percent disability rating. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS:

Per his Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Summary of Benefits, he is rated him with a 100 percent service-connected disability. Therefore, he should be placed on the permanent disability retirement list.   

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 11 Feb 93.

On 10 Apr 95, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, with a narrative reason for separation of “Disability, Severance Pay,” based upon a 10 percent disability for Panic Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder, Social and Industrial Adaptability Impairment, and was credited with 2 years and 2 months of active service.   

According to the documentation provided by the applicant, dated 26 Mar 16, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rated him at 100 percent with a combined service-connected disability. 

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 F.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The applicant was discharged on 10 Apr 95, with an Honorable character of service; initially by reason of “Personality Disorder,” but was corrected through AFBCMR action, dated 22 Jun 99, and changed to “Physical Disability – Entitled to Severance Pay for the diagnosis of Panic Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder” rated a 10 percent.  The applicant has supplied evidence from the DVA that reflects he was service-connected for Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia and Major Depression with a 70 percent disability rating from 28 Aug 98 and 10 percent for left knee strain, also from 28 Aug 98.  Based upon a claim for an increase in rating received on 7 Dec 98, the applicant’s rating for Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia and Major Depression was increased to 100 percent, made effective 28 Aug 98.

Addressing the applicant’s implicit desire for a medical retirement, the military Disability Evaluation System (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 “snapshot” time of separation and not based on future progression of disease or injury.  Accordingly, although the applicant has since been assigned a progressively higher disability rating for his Panic Disorder and Major Depression, the increased rating was, more likely than not, justifiably based upon a progression of symptoms, impairment, disclosures present at the time of the VA examinations conducted in Sep and Oct 98; as opposed to the findings present at the time of separation in 1995.   Specifically, while VA has established a nexus between the applicant’s medical condition(s) and his military service, the higher ratings assigned three years post-discharge are not clinically determinative of his level of functional impairment at the time of discharge.   Unlike the Military Department, under Title 38, U.S.C., the DVA is empowered to conduct periodic re-evaluations after an individual have been discharged 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; as has occurred in the applicant’s case.

Recommend denial.  The burden of proof has not been met to justify the desired change of the record; notwithstanding his exceptionally delayed submission to the Board.   

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In further support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement, and a memorandum from the Chief of Mental Health Services, Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, dated 29 Mar 95, recommending his separation due to the severity of the applicant’s disorder.  (Exhibit D).  

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Psychiatric Consult recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The full review of the applicant’s chart was summarized for the Board by the medical advisor on 21 Jul 17 and will not be reiterated here. The Psychiatric Consultant fully concurs with the thorough advisory of the medical consult and finds the evidence insufficient to warrant desired change of the record.

A complete copy of the AFBCMR Psychiatric Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit F.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 27 Apr 18 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit G).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES:

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 Medical Consultant and the AFBCMR Mental Health consultant 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:

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-2016-02426 in Executive Session on 20 Jun 18 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Jun 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 21 Jul 17.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 27 Sep 17.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Oct 17, w/atchs.
	Exhibit F.  Advisory, BCMR Psychiatric Consultant, dated 26 Mar 18.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 27 Apr 18.   

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