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 Air Force contract psychologist while undergoing a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). During the same period, he was diagnosed by three different private doctors as having Bipolar disorder. He was prescribed medication typical for individuals with Bipolar 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 Bipolar 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 26 September 2000 to 23 October 2011. On 24 November 2009, an MEB diagnosed the applicant with Dysthymic Disorder and referred his case to an Informal Physical Evaluation board (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 disagreed with the IPEB findings and recommendation on 12 April 2010 and requested a formal hearing. On 25 May 2010, the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) diagnosed the applicant with Dysthymic Disorder incurred in the line of duty and while entitled to receive basic pay. The FPEB recommended the applicant be discharged with severance pay at a ten percent disability rating. The applicant disagreed with the FPEB findings and recommendation and requested his case be forwarded to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) for review and final decision. SAFPC considered the applicant’s contention for a permanent retirement with a disability rating of 80 percent. Following a review of all the facts and evidence in the case, to include the testimony presented before the FPEB, the remarks by the FPEB, the remarks of the IPEB, the service medical record, and the narrative summary of the MEB, the Board concurred with the disposition recommended by the previous boards to discharge the applicant with severance pay with a disability rating of ten percent. On 20 July 2011, the Secretary of the Air Force directed the applicant be separated from active service for disability under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code (USC), Section 1203, with severance pay computed under Section 1212 of the same Title. As a result, the applicant was released from active duty effective 23 October 2011 with a narrative reason for separation of Disability, Severance Pay, Non-Combat. He served 11 years and 28 days on active duty. According to a DVA Rating Decision, dated 22 July 2013, the applicant was awarded a combined 100 percent disability rating for his conditions of Sleep Apnea and Asthma (50%); Irritable Bowel Syndrome (30%); Headaches (30%); Dysthymic Disorder (previously evaluated as Bipolar Disorder) (30%); Cervical Strain with Degenerative Disc Disease (20%), Left Shoulder, Status Post Arthroscopy (20%); Thoracolumbar Strain with Radiographic Findings of Disc Degenerative Disc Disease and Schmorl’s Nodes (10%); Right Knee Patellofemoral Syndrome with Degenerative Changes of the Patella (10%); Left Ankle Sprain and Degenerative Arthritis (10%); and Right Ankle Sprain (10%). The applicant was diagnosed with several other conditions which were determined to be service-connected with a zero percent disability rating. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFD recommends denial. DPSD 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 timely filed. 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-2013-00711 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-2013-00711: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Feb 13. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 1 May 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 May 13. 3 4 5