RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-02643

	COUNSEL: 

	HEARING: YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His honorable discharge be changed to a medical retirement.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and numerous additional disabilities that were neglected by his physicians.  While suffering from both PTSD and TBI upon separation he was not able to advocate for himself and receive retirement benefits for the disabilities he received while enlisted in the Air Force to include:  PTSD, TBI, patellofemoral syndrome both knees, asthma, hearing loss, tinnitus, neck injury, back injury, carpal tunnel, and temporomandibular joint dysfunction.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former Air Force staff sergeant.

The applicant was honorably released from active duty under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, (Completion of Required Active Service) and transferred to the Air Force Reserve.  He served six years on active duty.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits C and D.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Medical Consultant recommends further review of the applicant’s fitness for duty due to PTSD and TBI by the Mental Health Advisor.  Although the applicant has been assigned disability compensation for a number of somatic complaints and is destined for possible future compensation for other service-incurred conditions by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), insufficient evidence is presented to indicate that either of his somatic complaints precluded him from reasonably performing the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating; except for his parachute rigging duties, which will be addressed.  Specifically, there is no evidence that the applicant had a medical condition so severe as to disqualify him from worldwide duty to the extent or duration that warranted a Medical Hold and referral for Medical Evaluation Board (MEB)/Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) processing.  While it may appear counterintuitive for conditions rated by the DVA were made effective the day after leaving military service, there was insufficient objective evidence found that established, or should have established, a cause and effect relationship between the termination of the applicant’s service and his somatic complaints.  Finding the applicant unfit for retention due to his somatic complaints, despite his demonstrated outstanding performance history, is incongruent with a finding that he was unable to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, and rating.  Consequently, an insufficient objective basis was found upon which to justify a de facto determination of unfitness and a medical retirement due to the applicant’s somatic complaints, e.g., knee pain [patellofemoral syndrome], neck pain, back pain, wrist pain [carpal tunnel syndrome], and TMJ, and a medical retirement based upon the applicant’s somatic complaints.  This determination excludes any consideration of the applicant’s mental health diagnosis, which warrants separate review by a mental health consultant.  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 the narrative reason for 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 a compensation rating from the DVA one or more medical conditions that were service-connected, but not proven militarily unfitting at the time of release from military service.  The DVA is also empowered to conduct periodic re-evaluations 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.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

The AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor recommends denying the application.  Although the applicant had a mental health condition that may have been distressing to him, it was not so overwhelming that it significantly affected his ability to perform his job.  Consequently, although this applicant applied for and received compensation from the DVA, he was not eligible for a medical board evaluation or rating from the military.  It should be emphasized that there were no limitations placed on the applicant due to a mental disability.  Even in 2006 a year after his discharge, he was able to perform a job, go to school, and do most the chores around the house and care for his children.   His performance for the military was laudatory and his ratings were outstanding.  Consequently, it is clear that the anxiety that the applicant experienced did not significantly affect his fitness for duty.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent copies of the Air Force evaluations to the applicant on 18 May 18 for comment (Exhibit E), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was not timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an error and injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of the AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor and find that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

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 the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

The application was adjudicated without a personal appearance.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2016-02643 in Executive Session on 20 Jun 18:

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

            Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 21 Jun 16.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 28 Oct 16.
Exhibit D:	Advisory opinion, AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor, dated 4 May 18.
Exhibit E:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 18 May 18.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9 pertaining to Docket Number BC-2016-02643.