RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03455 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His official records be corrected to show that: 1. His Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) found him unfit for duty. 2. He was medically retired due to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His IPEB incorrectly assumed his PTSD and OCD did not overcome the presumption of fitness, despite the assessments and observations of numerous health care professionals and his unit commander. For almost two years, everyone has clearly stated how the severity of both conditions has had a debilitating effect on every aspect of his social and occupational life. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered active duty on 21 Jun 82. On 29 Nov 10, the applicant was seen at the base Mental Health Clinic for symptoms from traumatic exposure during deployment. On 11 Jan 11, the applicant was again seen at the base Mental Health Clinic for deployment-related traumatic stress. He was assigned a Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score of 75. On 7 Nov 11, an AF Form 469, Duty-Limiting Condition Report, was initiated, indicating the applicant was undergoing an MEB and therefore not World-Wide Qualified. On 13 Mar 12, the MEB summary stated the applicant had also been diagnosed with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), and “will require ongoing mental health counseling and follow-up for the foreseeable future.” On 30 Mar 12, the applicant requested a six-month extension to his enlistment beyond his mandatory retirement date of 1 Jul 12 for completion of his Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) processing. On 27 Jun 12, the IPEB recommended the applicant be returned to duty due to his mandatory high-year of tenure date which placed him in a presumptive period of fitness. Thus, the applicant was presumed to be fit for duty based on the presumption of fitness rule. On 2 Jul 12, the applicant disagreed with the findings and recommendations of the IPEB and requested a Formal PEB. That request was denied because the justification he provided did not support further consideration. On 10 Jul 12, an MEB addendum from the applicant’s base Medical Health Clinic assigned him a GAF score of 44. On 31 Dec 12, the applicant was relieved from active duty and retired, effective 1 Jan 13, with a reason for retirement of “Voluntary Retirement: Maximum Service or Time In Grade,” and was credited with 30 years, 6 months, and 10 days of total active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, which are included at Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFC recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The applicant did not submit any new medical evidence to support his contention that the IPEB incorrectly assumed his medical conditions did not overcome the presumption of fitness. If the hospital commander believed there was additional compelling medical documentation calling into question the appropriateness of the IPEB’s decision to return the applicant to duty, he/she could have requested “a special review” of the IPEB recommendation. There was no such request. No error or injustice occurred during the disability process or in the IPEB’s interpretation of the rule for overcoming presumption of fitness. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFC evaluation is at Exhibit C. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The military Disability Evaluation System (DES), established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law, only offer compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries which specifically rendered a member unfit for continued active service and which were the cause of career termination; and then only for the degree of impairment present at the time of separation and not based on future occurrences. Physical Disability Evaluation, states a Service member shall be considered unfit when the evidence establishes that the member, due to physical disability, is unable to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating to include duties during a remaining period of Reserve obligation. Therefore, given the clinical history and documents provided, it is likely the applicant would have been found unfit for further military duty had he not entered the presumptive period when a Medical Evaluation Board was decided upon and subsequent referral to a Physical Evaluation Board took place. However, DoDI 1332.38, Physical Disability Evaluation, explains that Service members who are pending retirement at the time they are referred for physical disability evaluation enter the DES under a rebuttable presumption they are physically fit. The DES compensates disabilities when they cause or contribute to career termination. However, continued performance of duty until a Service member is approved for length or service retirement creates a rebuttable presumption that a Service member’s medical conditions have not caused career termination. Additionally, service members shall be considered to be pending retirement when the dictation of the member’s MEB occurs after any of the following circumstances: (1) A member’s request for voluntary retirement has been approved. Revocation of voluntary retirement orders for purposes of referral into the DES does not negate application of the presumption, and (2) An enlisted member is within 12 months of his or her retention control point (RCP) or expiration of active obligated service (EAOS), but will be eligible for retirement at his or her RCP/EAOS. Clearly, the dictation of the applicant’s MEB took place within the presumptive period of fitness. Nevertheless, the presumption of fitness can be overcome if one of the following applies: (1) Within the presumptive period an acute, grave illness or injury occurs that would prevent the member from performing further duty if he or she were not retiring, (2) Within the presumptive period a serious deterioration of a previously diagnosed condition, to include a chronic condition, occurs and the deterioration would preclude further duty if the member were not retiring, or (3) The condition for which the member is referred is a chronic condition and a preponderance of evidence establishes the member was not performing duties befitting his or her experience in the office, grade, rank, or rating before entering the presumptive period. When there has been no serious deterioration within the presumptive period, the ability to perform duty in the future shall not be a consideration. After an earnest consideration of the possible application of the rule of serious deterioration of a chronic condition or the rule applied when an individual clearly was not performing duties commensurate with office, grade, rank, or rating; the latter which the commander’s letter of 2012 infers; but was still confronted with the fact that it was the applicant’s HYT and not his PTSD or OCD that ended his military career. Although the applicant’s providers documented his clinical symptoms as early as Nov 10, they did not pursue disqualifying him or referring him for MEB processing until a year later. It is only after the applicant entered the presumptive period that a Duty-Limiting Condition Report was first established for him in Nov 11. Indeed, the applicant required an extension of his Jul 12 mandatory retirement date (MRD) in order to complete the DES processing. Finally, based upon a preponderance of evidence, there appears to be no error in processing of his case. A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s 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 22 Jan 13 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). ________________________________________________________________ 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 injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. While the applicant contends that his unfitting conditions should have formed the basis for his disability retirement, we are not convinced that he is the victim of an error or injustice. In this respect, we note the comments of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant indicating that while the military Disability Evaluation System (DES) can offer compensation for medical conditions which were the cause of career termination, the applicant’s medical conditions did not cause the termination of his career—the applicant served on active duty for over 30 years and was retired due to attaining his high year of tenure. The personal sacrifice the applicant endured for his country is noted and the recommendation to deny the requested relief in no way diminishes the high regard we have for his outstanding service. However, 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-2012-03455 in Executive Session on 21 Mar 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-03455 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Jul 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPFC, dated 2 Jan 12. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 18 Jan 13, w/atchs. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 22 Jan 12.