RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03058 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Fibromyalgia be reflected on the Air Force Form 356, Findings and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), dated 1 June 2009. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Due to pressure to complete the necessary process in a timely manner, an incomplete work-up was accomplished at the time of her Medical Evaluation Board (MEB), which prevented adequate treatment of her unfitting conditions. In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of the documents placing her on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL), MEB Narrative, medical documentation, and Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) documentation. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Air Force Reserve serving on extended active duty in the grade of colonel (O-6). According to a Duty Limiting Condition Report, dated 25 June 2008, she was placed in a “Not Present for Duty Status” in accordance with Air Force Instruction 48-123, paragraph (A)(2) and Air Force Reserve Command Surgeon General Policy Memorandum 06-01, due to a non- duty related medical condition that required a Worldwide Duty Evaluation (WDE) and evaluation by an MEB or PEB. As a result the applicant was not authorized to participate for pay or points until final disposition of the WDE. An MEB Narrative, dated 19 February 2009, indicates the applicant was diagnosed with a disqualifying condition of Partial Complex Seizure Disorder which was found to be in the line of duty. It was noted that she would definitely not function well in a deployed environment in her current status. The MEB results indicated she be returned to duty with an assignment limitation code of “C-2” or C-3” based on her ability to function as a senior medical leader and perform all required duties at a Continental United States (CONUS) installation. An MEB Report, dated 4 March 2009, indicates the applicant was diagnosed with Seizure Partial Complex with Secondary Generalization, Vertigo, Tinnitus-Left Ear, Fatigue, Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety, and Osteoarthritis Localized Secondary Foot Left Mid-foot. The MEB referred the applicant’s case to the PEB. An Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) summary, dated 1 June 2009, indicates the applicant was diagnosed with a compensable and ratable condition of Complex Partial Seizure Disorder with Secondary Generalization at a 40 percent disability rating; potentially unfitting but not currently compensable or ratable conditions of Positional Vertigo, Tinnitus, Fatigue, and Osteoarthritis - Left Mid Foot; and, not separately unfitting and not compensable or ratable condition of Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety. The IPEB found the applicant was unfit because of physical disability, that her disability was incurred in the line of duty, and that her condition may be permanent. The IPEB recommended the applicant be placed on the TDRL with a 40 percent disability rating. On 29 June 2009, the applicant concurred with the IPEB’s findings and recommended disposition. On 8 July 2009, the Secretary of the Air Force approved the findings and directed the applicant be placed on the TDRL under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section 1202. The applicant was released from active duty and placed on the TDRL effective 29 September 2009. She served 9 years, 7 months, and 19 days on active duty. A DVA Rating Decision, dated 8 June 2010, indicates the applicant was granted unemployability and a 90 percent disability rating effective 29 September 2009. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSD (USAF Physical Disability Division) recommends denial. DPSD states the preponderance of evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the disability process. The Department of Defense and the DVA disability evaluation systems operate under separate laws. Under Title 10, United States Code, PEBs must determine if a member’s condition renders them unfit for continued military service relating to their office, grade, rank, or rating. The fact that a person may have a medical condition does not mean that the condition is unfitting for continued military service. To be unfitting, the condition must be such that it alone precludes the member 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 USAF disability boards must rate disabilities based on the member’s condition at that time. It is the charge of the DVA to pick up where the Air Force must, by law, leave off. Under Title 38, United States Code, the DVA may rate any service-connected condition based upon future unemployability or reevaluate based on changes in the severity of the condition. This often results in different ratings by the two agencies. The complete DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 7 June 2011 for review and comment within 15 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has received no response. _________________________________________________________________ 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 an 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 Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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-2010-03058 in Executive Session on 28 June 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-03058: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Oct 09, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 27 Sep 10. Exhibit D. Email, SAF/MRBC, dated 7 Jun 11.