RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02701 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge with severance pay with a ten percent disability rating be reevaluated for a higher percentage or his discharge be upgraded to disability retirement. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He seeks placement on the TDRL or to be permanently disability retired so that his dependents can receive benefits. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 20 Sep 00, the applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force. On 30 Jul 09, the applicant underwent a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The MEB referred his case to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB), based on the diagnoses of Dysthymic Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Bereavement. On 2 Sep 09, the IPEB reviewed the case and found the applicant unfit for further military service with a recommendation for discharge with severance pay with a ten percent disability rating. The IPEB noted the applicant’s condition had stabilized on medication and his prognosis for long-term recovery was good. The applicant nonconcurred with the findings and recommendation of the IPEB and appealed to the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) for return to duty. On 18 Nov 09, the FPEB considered the applicant’s case and concurred with the findings and recommendation of the IPEB. The applicant nonconcurred with the recommendation of the FPEB and appealed to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) for retention on active duty. On 26 Feb 10, SAFPC directed the applicant be discharged with severance pay with a ten percent disability rating. On 27 May 10, the applicant was honorably discharged for physical disability with severance pay and a ten percent disability rating. He was credited with nine years, eight months, and eight days of total active service. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: APFC/DPSD recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The Department of Defense (DoD) and the DVA disability evaluation systems operate under separate laws. Under Title 10, USC, a PEB must determine if a condition renders a member unfit for continued military service. The fact that a person may have a medical condition does not mean the condition is unfitting for continued military service. To be unfitting, the condition must be such that it alone precludes the individual from fulfilling their military duties. If the board renders a finding of unfit, the law provides appropriate compensation due to the premature termination of their career. Further, it must be noted the service disability boards must rate disabilities based on the individual's condition at the time of evaluation. It is the charge of the DVA to pick up where the Air Force must, by law, leave off. Under Title 38, the DVA may rate any service-connected condition based upon future employability or reevaluate based on changes in the severity of a condition. This often results in different ratings by the DoD and DVA. The complete AFPC/DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The factors used in assessing an individual's level of social impairment include an assessment of living arrangements, marital, leisure activity, acquaintances, substance use/abuse, and police record. The factors considered in assessing an individual's level of industrial or occupational impairment include, but are not limited to, job stability, type of job, schooling/educational pursuits. After using these functional capabilities to determine the individual’s level of impairment in social and industrial/occupational environments, a mental condition will then be characterized as mild, definite/moderate, considerable, severe, or total; with a disability rating of 10, 30, 50, 70 or 100 percent. If the individual’s impairment has been characterized as mild they must be able to maintain adequate job and social adjustment. The individual who has been characterized with a definite level of impairment does not demonstrate a significant requirement for hospitalization, but show some signs and symptoms of mental illness on examination, and the individual with a considerable level of impairment is mentally competent to handle financial affairs and to participate in the PEB proceedings, but displays overt signs/symptoms of mental illness such as; autism, ambivalence, inappropriate affect, dissociative thinking, delusions, hallucinations, hyperactivity, depression, lack of insight, poor judgment, bizarre behavior, disorientation, emotional lability, and memory defects. The Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) is a numeric scale (0 through 100) used by mental health clinicians and physicians to rate the social, occupational, and psychological functioning of adults. The GAF also contributes to the overall assessment of the individual's level of functionality or, inversely, the level of impairment. The applicant's level of impairment in social and industrial/occupational impairment for his Dysthymic Disorder was mild; and his GAF was determined to be 80. Based on the evidence provided, the applicant was appropriately assigned a ten percent disability rating based on the use of both metrics. The applicant’s bereavement and ADHD diagnoses are not considered compensable disabilities. Furthermore, the applicant has not provided the disability rating and rationale for the rating conducted by the DVA. The Medical Consultant finds that based upon the preponderance of the available evidence the applicant has not met the burden of proof of an error or injustice, under either set of criteria, to warrant the desired change of record. The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He is not requesting his disability rating be raised to 70 percent. He would like to receive a 30 percent disability rating to be able to receive full retirement benefits. He was diagnosed with depression and planned on seeking treatment once he returned from overseas. His unit was not supportive of him in seeking treatment for his depression. Although, at the time he believed he was fit for duty and wanted to stay on active duty, he has come to realize that he was in fact unfit for duty, and had he received support from his unit, his depression would not have become unmanageable and he would have been able to save his career. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F. On 25 May 11, his application was administratively closed in accordance with his 26 Apr 11 request (Exhibits G & H). By virtue of a DD Form 149, Application for Correction of Military Record, dated 21 Sep 11, the applicant requests his application be reopened, reiterates his requests, and provides a copy of his DVA rating decision. ________________________________________________________________ _ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 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, to include his rebuttal response, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and the AFBMCR Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. After a review of the documentation submitted and the evidence of record we find no errors in the applicant’s discharge processing. We further find the applicant’s medical condition was reviewed and rated in accordance with the applicable instructions and policy. The applicant was separated for an unfitting condition that interfered with his ability to continue to serve on active duty and was rated based on the seriousness of his condition at the time of separation. It appears the applicant now believes his medical condition at the time of separation was severe enough to warrant a disability rating that would allow him to retire. We note the Air Force and the DVA are separate federal agencies and operate under different laws and policies. The Air Force is tasked to maintain a fit and vital force and assesses a service member's disability with respect to fitness for duty and if found unfit, compensates the member based on the degree of impairment that cut-short their military career. The DVA, however, rates for any and all service-connected conditions, to the degree they interfere with future employability, without consideration of fitness. When combined these two systems provide a continuum of coverage of our veterans. For these reasons, it is not uncommon for the military department and the DVA to issue different ratings. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 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 issue(s) 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-2010-02701 in Executive Session on 7 Feb 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Jul 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 13 Aug 10. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 13 Apr 11. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Apr 11. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Apr 11. Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 26 Apr 11. Exhibit H. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 May 11. Exhibit I. DD Form 149, dated 21 Sep 11, w/atchs.