RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00711 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His medical discharge with severance pay be changed to a medical retirement. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His diagnosis of Schizoid Personality Disorder was only given to him by one Sir Force contract psychologist while undergoing a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). During the same period, he was diagnosed by three different private doctors as having Bi-Polar disorder. He was prescribed medication typical for individuals with Bi-Polar Disorder. He was subsequently denied a medical retirement based on this single diagnosis after 11 years of honorable service. After being discharged, he received a service-connected disability rating of 30 percent for Bi-Polar Disorder from the Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA). The applicant does not provide any evidence in support of his appeal. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who served on active duty from 14 November 2000 to 30 October 2009. On 19 March 2009, an MEB diagnosed the applicant with right knee pain and referred his case to the IPEB. On 26 May 2009, the IPEB considered the applicant’s case and agreed with the MEB findings. The IPEB recommended the applicant be discharged with severance pay at a ten percent disability rating. The applicant agreed with the IPEB findings and recommendation on 1 June 2009. As a result, he was released from active duty effective 30 October 2009 for disability with severance pay. He served 8 years, 11 months, and 17 days on active duty. According to a DVA Rating Decision, dated 27 July 2010, the applicant was awarded a combined 80 percent disability rating for his conditions of Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) (50%), Lumbar Spine Degenerative Arthritis (10%), Right Knee Degenerative Arthritis, Patellofemoral Syndrome (10%), and Right Ankle Degenerative Changes (10%). ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFD recommends denial. DPFD states the DVA disability evaluation system operates under separate laws. Under Title 10, United States Code (USC), Physical Evaluation Boards must determine if a member’s condition renders them unfit for continued military service relating to their office, grade, rank or rating. The fact that a person may have a medical condition does not mean that the condition is necessarily unfitting for continued military service. To be unfitting, the condition must be such that it alone precludes the member from fulfilling their military duties. If the board renders a finding of unfit, the law provides appropriate compensation due to the premature termination of their career. Further, it is noted the Air Force disability boards must rate disabilities based on the member’s condition at the time of evaluation; in essence a snapshot of their condition at that time. It is the charge of the DVA to pick up where the Air Force must, by law, leave off. Under Title 38, USC, the DVA may rate any service-connected condition based upon future employability or revaluate based on changes in the severity of a condition. This often results in different ratings by the two agencies. The preponderance of evidence reflects no error or injustice occurred in the applicant’s disability process. The complete DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 22 March 2013 for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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 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 Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its 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 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-2013-00648 in Executive Sessions on 24 October 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-00648: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Aug 12, w/atchs. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 6 Mar 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Mar 13. 2 3 4