RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01905 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason for separation on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Discharge or Release from Active Duty, be changed from adjustment disorder to medical. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was recently diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) by her local Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and Central Virginia Community Services offices. She was never tested for PTSD while she was in the Air Force. She has been wearing adult diapers ever since her gallbladder surgery in 2009. She has memory problems, tendonitis, patella femoral syndrome, residual gallbladder problems and shoulders that dislocate. She cannot lift, stoop, walk or squat for periods of time without pain. These are the reasons why she is requesting a change in the reason for her separation. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to copies of documents extracted from the Automated Records Management System (ARMS), the applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who enlisted on 19 May 2009. 1. On 18 October 2010 the applicant was notified by her commander that he was recommending her for discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 Administrative Separation of Airmen, (dated 9 Jul 04 incorporating through change 5, dated 14 Sep 10) paragraph 5.11.9., Mental Disorders. The specific reason for this action was that on or about 4 October 2010, the applicant was diagnosed with adjustment and personality disorders. A clinical psychologist’s evaluation indicated that her inappropriate behavior was likely to recur and her long term prognosis was poor. Additionally the psychologist determined that her diagnosed disorders were so severe that her ability to function in a military environment was significantly impaired and recommended administrative separation from the Air Force. 2. The commander also considered the following information while making a recommendation for discharge: On or about 16 August 2010, the applicant failed to type her hand written training notes for review as instructed. As a result, she received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) dated 16 August 2010. 3. On 18 October 2010, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and was advised of her right to consult counsel and submit statements on her own behalf. On 21 October 2010, she opted to consult counsel as well as submit a statement on her own behalf. 4. Subsequent to the file being found legally sufficient the discharge authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be separated with an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 10 November 2010, the applicant was released from active duty with an honorable characterization of service, a separation code of “JFY” and a narrative reason for separation of “Adjustment Disorder.” She was credited with 1 year, 5 months and 22 days of active duty service. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 1. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical Consultant states the mental health assessment by the Chief of Psychological Services dated 4 October 2010, clearly documents the existence of an adjustment disorder. In the report, the psychologist details historical behavior patterns consistent with the Axis I diagnosis of adjustment disorder with disturbance of emotions and conduct. Even so, the mental health assessment specifically states, the applicant has no medical condition that would warrant referral to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). 2. A review of the 26 January 2012, DVA rating indicated the assignment of 10 percent service connection for adjustment disorder with disturbance of emotions and notes no justification for a higher rating or impairment determination. A global assessment of functioning (GAF) score of 65 was assigned indicating mild symptoms with some difficulty with social and occupational functioning. 3. A review of the applicant’s ambulatory medical and mental health records indicated no presence of PTSD despite numerous mental health encounters which occurred during the applicant’s period of service. Therefore, even if mild symptoms of the disease were present, it would not be considered unfitting or disqualifying for service. 4. Although the DVA assigned a disability rating for adjustment disorder, under current Department of Defense and Air Force Policies, such a disorder is not considered a compensable disability; and thus resulted in administrative discharge. On the other hand, operating under a different set of laws, Title 38 United States Code (U.S.C.), with a different purpose, the DVA is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition determined service incurred, without regard to and independent of its individual proven impact upon a service member’s fitness for continued service or narrative reason for release from military service. With this is mind, Title 38, U.S.C., which governs the DVA compensation system, was written to allow award of compensation ratings for conditions with a nexus with military service. This is the reason why an individual can be found fit for release from active military service and yet sometime thereafter receive a compensation rating from the DVA for a condition found to be service- connected, but which was not proven militarily unfitting during the period of active service. 5. The BCMR Medical Consultant concludes, based on the review of medical documentation provided, that no unfitting conditions existed at the time of separation and no MEB was justified. Therefore, the BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s request for a change in the reason for separation from an adjustment disorder to a medical diagnosis. The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant 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 8 January 2013 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). To date, this office has not received a response. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely. 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; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred during the discharge process. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority. The applicant has provided no evidence, which would lead us to believe the narrative reason for separation was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation. We note the applicant’s contention that her PTSD, memory problems, tendonitis, patella femoral syndrome, residual gallbladder problems and shoulders that dislocate are reasons why her narrative reason for separation should be reflected as medical. However, the applicant has not provided evidence to establish these conditions were unfitting at the time of her separation. Based on the above comments, we agree with the BCMR Medical Consultant’s assessment that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Accordingly, the applicant’s request is not favorably considered. 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 involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ 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 this application in Executive Session on 4 April 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-01905: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 April 2012, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 7 January 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 8 January 2013. Panel Chair Dear: Reference your application submitted under the provisions of AFI 36-2603 (Section 1552, 10 USC), AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-01905. After careful consideration of your application and military records, the Board determined that the evidence you presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice. Accordingly, the Board denied your application. You have the right to submit newly discovered relevant evidence for consideration by the Board. In the absence of such additional evidence, a further review of your application is not possible. BY DIRECTION OF THE PANEL CHAIR Attachment: Record of Board Proceedings 2