RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03399 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Her administrative discharge be changed to a medical retirement and she be awarded full benefits. 2. Her narrative reason for separation, as reflected on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed from Adjustment Disorder to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder was an error because she was a productive airman until diagnosed with PTSD while on active duty. The psychologist made a biased decision and lied to cover-up his initial diagnosis because she attempted suicide again later that evening after meeting with him. Since the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) issued her a 70 percent compensable disability rating associated with her PTSD, she should have received a medical evaluation board (MEB) and be medically retired instead of receiving an administrative discharge. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 11 January 2005. On 27 August 2007, the applicant was notified of her commander’s intent to recommend she be discharged from the Air Force for conditions that interfered with military service: Mental Disorders – Adjustment Disorder. On 27 August 2007, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and after consulting with counsel, waived her rights to submit a statement on her own behalf. On 28 August 2007, the applicant’s commander approved her administrative separation under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, by reason of conditions that significantly interfere with her ability to function within a military environment: Mental Disorders – Adjustment Disorder. On 28 August 2007, the Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support discharge and recommended that she receive a honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 31 August 2007, the applicant was honorably discharged with a narrative reason for separation of Adjustment Disorder and was credited with 2 years, 7 months, and 20 days. On 9 March 2009, according to documentation provided by the applicant, the DVA notified the applicant of their determination that her PTSD with major depressive disorder was service connected and she was granted a combined compensable disability rating of 70 percent. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application is contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C and Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the narrative reason for separation was appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating the applicant’s failure to completely disclose relevant mental health history prior to enlistment, which would have been disqualifying, renders her request for a medical retirement due to PTSD unwarranted. The applicant’s past mental health history contains a plethora of both ambulatory and inpatient visits for multiple mental health conditions, including but not limited to, alcohol dependence, adjustment disorder, PTSD [chronic], personality disorder and suicide attempts. The applicant was evaluated by a clinical psychologist who recommended administrative separation resulting from a longstanding disorder of character, behavior, and adaptability so severe that her ability to function effectively in the military environment was significantly impaired. A significant discrepancy exists between the information submitted with this application and the applicant’s medical records. The denial of previous suicide attempts on the applicant’s pre-enlistment questionnaire in 2004 differs markedly from the information provided after entry in the military, which documents “yearly” suicide attempts in the applicant’s childhood. This discrepancy may represent a fraudulent non-disclosure of a significant preexisting mental health condition that would have been disqualifying for entry into military service. The recurrence of the applicant’s maladaptive pattern of behavior is more consistent with the expected [already demonstrated] natural progression of a pre- existing mental deficiency. There is some documentation in the record which indicates chronic PTSD as a co-morbid diagnosis, alongside other mental conditions, and noted that the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) has established service connection for her mental health condition. However, based upon a preponderance of evidence, the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood which was the mental health diagnosis that rendered her unsuited for continued military service is not negated by the DVA’s decision to service connect chronic PTSD. The military Disability Evaluation System (DES), established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law, under Title 10, Untied States Code (U.S.C.) only offer compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries which specifically rendered a member unfit for continued active service and were the cause for career termination; and then only for the degree of impairment present at the time of separation and not based on future occurrences. The applicant should be aware that the DVA operates under a different set of laws and is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition for which it establishes a nexus with military service, without regard to its proven or demonstrated impact upon a service, nor the intervening period since release from service. A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 17 January 2013, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). 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 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 in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his 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 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-2012-03399 in Executive Session on 14 May 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Jul 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 19 Sep 12. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 15 Jan 13, w/atchs. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jan 13.