RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04247 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation (Unsuitable – Personality Disorder) be changed to reflect Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His medical diagnosis is PTSD - this was not a recognized disorder at the time he was discharged. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 18 November 1977. The applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFM 39-12. The specific reasons were as follows: the applicant was disqualified from his AFSC (206XX) and was entered into training in the 60310 (vehicle operation) career field. However, the heavy medication prescribed and used by him made his utilization as an Air Force vehicle operator a precarious proposition. The commander directed that he was not to operate a Government Motor Vehicle (GMV) while taking the large amounts of drugs prescribed by USAF medical authorities. He had been medically disqualified from his previous AFSC and for all practical purposes could not perform in his new AFSC. Additionally, the diagnosis and recommendation by the Chief, Mental Health Clinic indicates that the applicant’s situation was volatile and unpredictable. The report further stated that separation was the wisest course of action. He was advised of his rights in this matter and after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a conditional waiver requesting an honorable discharge. In a legal review of the case file, the staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended discharge. On 12 March 1981, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFM 39-12 (Unsuitable – Personality Disorder). He served 3 years, 3 months and 26 days on active duty and credited with 1 year and 5 month of foreign service. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical Consultant states over time as in this case after a decade, an individual’s pattern of behavior or reported symptoms may vary, e.g., expand, improve, worsen, or may be reported differently as new functional impairments arise which were not clinically apparent or overly present during service. Thus, the fact that the applicant has since been service connected for PTSD, as determined in 1993 and, as of 1995 has sustained a total (100%) disability rating, does not invalidate the findings and diagnostic conclusions reached at the time of the applicant’s military service. In fact, the Medical Consultant notes that following an 18 December 1966 VA claim for a nervous disorder, the VA medical officials issued a diagnosis of Anxiety Neurosis with Depression and assigned 10% disability rating based upon an examination completed on 22 July 1987; but made effective the date of claim was filed. However, the Medical Consultant wishes to direct attention to the fact that the applicant had been issued a military diagnosis of Anxiety Neurosis and/or Depressive Neurosis over a several month period, only to have the diagnosis changed to a clearly unsuiting and non-compensable Passive Aggressive Personality Disorder on or about 12 February 1981. Over thirty years later, the Medical Consultant cannot impugn the assessment by the military provider as erroneous (mistaken or deliberate) or whether it was simply based upon the preponderance of evidence at the time which, noting the emergence of thoughts of harm to self and family member (12 February 1981), which in the opinion of the Medical Consultant suggests maladaptive pattern of thought akin to an Adjustment Disorder if not Personality Disorder. Nevertheless, there appears to have been no indication of eligibility or intent to process the applicant through the Disability Evaluation System (DES), under AFM 35-4 (forerunner of today’s AFI 36-3212). The applicant and the Board are reminded that operating under Title 10, U.S.C., the Military Department can by law only offer compensation for the illness or injury that causes career termination, and then only to the degree of impairment present the “snap-shot” time of final military disposition. Whereas, operating under a different set of laws [Title 38, U.S.C.] with a different purpose, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition for which a nexus with military service has been established, without regard to its proven impact upon a member’s retainability, fitness to serve, narrative reason for release from military service, or the intervening period since discharge. Moreover, the DVA is empowered to conduct periodic evaluations for the purpose of adjusting (increase or decrease) the disability rating as the level of impairment emanating from a given medical condition may vary (improve or worsen) over the lifetime of the veteran. Although the DVA has since established a nexus between the applicant’s history [beginning in 1978] of occupational stress, the symptoms reported in 1987, and the evidence of escalating symptoms in 1993 and 1995, in establishing service connection for the diagnosis of PTSD, the Medical Consultant opines these facts are not determinative that PTSD was an unfitting medical condition [despite the lack of nomenclature] at the time of the applicant’s military service. Nevertheless, the Board may collectively consider the applicant’s top performance during Basic Military Service, his initial laudatory performance reports, his apparent decline after assignment to an undesired occupation, the perception of an “11th hour” change in diagnosis by the military service provider, and the post-service diagnosis of PTSD, in offering the applicant alternative relief by changing the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority. The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 24 February 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. _________________________________________________________________ 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. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we believe that relief is not warranted and the applicant has not provided any evidence which would lead us to believe otherwise. His contentions are duly noted; however, the detailed comments provided by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant adequately address these allegations. Therefore, 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 failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has suffered either an error or an injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an 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-2012-04247 in Executive Session on 18 June 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-04247 was considered: Exhibit A. Record of Proceedings, dated 6 September 2012, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant dated 22 February 2012. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated March 2013.