RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02440
		INDEX CODE:  

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her record be changed to show she was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress (PTSD) disorder secondary to assault and not schizophrenia.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her medical records, Office of Special Investigation (OSI) reports, memorandums for record, and a medical evaluation board (MEB) all indicate her paranoia was not developed by schizophrenia but rather by a PTSD, secondary to unresolved sexual assaults and sexual harassment that were circumstantial at the time due to the ongoing investigation. 

In support of her appeal, the applicant has provided numerous memorandums for the record (MFRs) supporting her contention, copies of two mental health evaluation briefs, a copy of a Freedom of Information Act application, an MEB summary, and copies of two (incomplete) enlisted performance reports (EPR’s).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant began her Air Force career on 13 April 2000.  On 25 January 2001, at the request of a friend, she sought psychiatric services at the mental health clinic on Columbus Air Force Base.  A psychologist monitored her progress until May 2001 when she was admitted to a psychiatric hospital for observation following comments she had listening devices implanted in her mouth.  She was diagnosed with Paranoid Personality Disorder and was referred to Keesler AFB for a complete mental health evaluation and possible MEB.  Psychiatric personnel at Keesler determined she suffered from severe stress and phase of life issue and she did not meet the criteria for MEB action.  They recommended she move back to an office environment with less stress and gradual increases in duty.  She was to engage in therapy on the basis that if no progress were made she would be subject to an administrative discharge.  On 27 August 2001, she told her First Sergeant she could not handle her duties and wanted to be reassigned.  She was brought back to the mental health clinic where it was determined she had not made any significant improvement.  The mental health clinic (vehemently) recommended she undergo an administrative discharge.

On 17 April 2002, another mental health evaluator noted she had not displayed the symptoms she had in the past and opined her delusions appeared to be stress induced.  The evaluator diagnosed her with the DSM-IV-TR Axis I disorder (309.9 Adjustment Disorder, Unspecified) and noted her symptoms were so severe that her ability to function effectively in the military environment was significantly impaired.  He recommended an administrative discharge.

On 28 May 2002, an MEB diagnosed her with schizophrenia, paranoid type and with personality disorder, not otherwise specified with personality traits.  The diagnosis of schizophrenia was considered to have not existed prior to service (EPTS) but her social and industrial impairment was considered mild.  The personality disorder was considered EPTS with minimal impairment.  The MEB recommended she be referred to an IPEB.

The remaining pertinent medical facts are contained in the evaluation prepared by the BCMR Medical Consultant at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant indicates a review of the available documentation both in the service medical record and from that given by the applicant is clearly consistent with a diagnosis of schizophrenia and not PTSD.  The applicant indicates she was raped while in the service and an MFR from a supervisor in January 2001 indicates that she made this allegation however there is no medical documentation that refers to this incident. Regardless, if such an assault had occurred, her diagnosis would remain the same and her disability discharge would have been unaffected since service connection was established at that time.  The BCMR Medical Consultant contends that no change in the records is warranted, as action and disposition in this case were proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.

The Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant provided a Memorandum for Record (MFR) wherein she reiterates the contentions listed throughout her original application.  The MFR does not address the Air Force Evaluation. 

The applicant’s statement is at Exhibit E.

______________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded by her uncorroborated assertion that her diagnosis should have been posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) secondary to assault and not schizophrenia, in and by itself, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant.  Consequently, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden of having suffered either an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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-2004-02440 in Executive Session on 7 July 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Jul 04, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 20 May 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 May 2005.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Jun 2005, w/atch.