RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00488 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His honorable discharge be changed to a medical disability retirement. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress disorder (PTSD) many years before ending his enlistment on 18 June 2007. Since PTSD is an unfitting condition, he feels he should have been processed through the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and then a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for medical retirement, prior to the end of his enlistment. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) Rating Decisions, dated 29 February 2008 and 1 July 2010. In support of the applicant’s rebuttal, the applicant provides a DVA Rating Decision, dated 20 September 2011. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The available record shows the applicant entered active duty in the Regular Air Force On 19 June 2001, and was honorably discharged on 18 June 2007, by reason of completion of active duty service commitment. He served six years on active duty. The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s military service records, are contained in the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The BCMR Medical Consultant states the applicant is correct in his assertion that he was diagnosed with PTSD well before the end of his enlistment on 18 June 2007. In fact, his service treatment records show that PTSD was considered a primary diagnosis, along with Partner Relations Problems, as early as January 2006. However, he has made an incorrect assertion that “since PTSD is an unfitting condition,” he feels he should have been processed through an MEB and subsequent PEB for a medical retirement. While some illnesses and injuries, by virtue of their nature, may trigger an MEB, this is not automatically the case for PTSD. The BCMR Medical Consultant indicates that the Military Disability Evaluation System (DES), established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law only offer compensation for and when one or more service incurred diseases or injuries specifically renders a member unfit for continued active service by a PEB; or were the cause for career termination. Thus, the mere presence of a given medical condition does not automatically qualify a member for disability evaluation and a medical separation or retirement. For an individual to be considered unfit for continued military service there must be a medical condition that prevents or interferes with the performance of duties commensurate with office, grade, rank, or rating; notwithstanding the impact upon the individual’s deployability. Unlike the Military Department, the DVA, operating under a different set of laws with a different purpose, is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition determined service incurred, without regard to its previous impact upon a service member’s retainability, fitness to serve, or the narrative reason for release from military service. This is the reason a veteran may receive compensation for a condition that was not militarily unfitting during service, but was assigned compensation by the DVA after discharge or in preparation for timely benefits upon transitioning from military service. The DVA is also empowered to conduct periodic reevlauatations for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating (increase or decrease) as the level of impairment for a given medical condition may vary (worsen or improve) over the lifetime of the veterans. It is the BCMR Medical Consultant’s opinion that the applicant has not met the burden of proof of an error or injustice that warrants the desired change of the record. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He believes he would have been processed through the Disability Evaluation System (DES) if he had stayed in the Air Force because he received a letter on 20 June 2007 claiming he was to go before an MEB; however, he was already discharged effective 18 June 2007. He received the letter as he was moving and it was lost in the transition, but he knows he received one. While his PTSD was a problem, he believes his other medical conditions kept him from making the military a career. The applicant’s complete rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ 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 error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and do not find that it supports a determination that he was improperly discharged. We note the applicant’s contention that he should have received a medical discharge; however, as indicated by the BCMR Medical Consultant, there is no evidence in the available military medical records to show he was ever considered for, or diagnosed with, a condition while on active duty that would qualify for referral under the Military Disability Evaluation System. In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence the applicant was denied rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or appropriate standards were not applied, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion 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-2011-00488 in Executive Session on 29 November 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-00488: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Jan 11, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 7 Oct 11. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Oct 11. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 26 Oct 11, w/atchs. Panel Chair