RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02094 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her discharge be changed to a medical retirement. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She should have been medically retired due to the type and degree of her disabilities. Her disabilities were incorrectly rated and the reason for separation was an incorrect diagnosis per the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) examination. In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DVA rating decision and extracts from her military personnel records. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 14 Jun 2000, the applicant entered active duty. On 24 Feb 2009, she was diagnosed with a barbiturate, opioid and nicotine dependence, Substance Induced Mood Disorder (SIMD) and an adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions. She was deemed unsuitable for continued military service and recommended for discharge. On 2 Sep 2009, the applicant’s commander notified her that he was initiating action to discharge her from the Air Force for conditions that interfere with military service, mental disorders, specifically adjustment disorders In Accordance With (IAW) Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen. On 15 Sep 2009, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge, was afforded the opportunity to consult military counsel and to submit statements in her own behalf. The applicant waived her right to a hearing and acknowledged she understood that the separation authority would determine the type of discharge issued to her. On 17 Sep 2009, the staff judge advocate found the recommendation for discharge legally sufficient. On 23 Sep 2009, the recommendation for discharge was approved by the discharge authority. On 27 Oct 2009, the applicant was discharged with an honorable characterization of service and narrative reason for separation of “Adjustment Disorder.” The applicant served 9 years, 4 months and 14 days on active duty. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. A review of the applicant’s master personnel records reflect the discharge, to include the narrative reason for separation and type of separation, was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant was referred for a routine Commander Directed Mental Health Evaluation (CDE), subsequent to concerns about her work function, substance abuse/dependence and overall suitability for military service. Her adjustment disorder complicated by her personality disorder was sufficiently severe that the applicant’s ability to function in the Air Force environment was significantly impaired and interfered with her performance of duty. She was considered at risk for worsening symptoms in the context of further military service and was recommended for discharge. There was no evidence of an error or injustice in the discharge processing. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. DPFD recommends denial. The preponderance of evidence reflects that the Physical Disability Division never received a referral to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and, therefore, could not have given the member a medical retirement/separation. The complete DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit D. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. Based upon the supplied medical evidence, there were no medical conditions that established a cause and effect relationship with the termination of the applicant’s service or an alternative reason for her release from military service. Although the applicant was evaluated and treated for episodic illnesses during her service, none were shown to have interfered with her military service to the extent or duration that warranted placement on medical hold for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and processing through the Disability Evaluation System (DES). The applicant was administratively separated from the Air Force and was awarded $14,957.04 in separation pay after a commander directed mental health evaluation was performed and she was deemed unsuitable for continued military service. Although the applicant’s medical records document a history of migraine headaches, it was not an unfitting condition. Additionally, her depressive disorder was addressed per her Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment (ADAPT) records which states that her physical presentation improved since discontinuing narcotics, tapering off of the barbiturate, and an overall decrease in occupational and family stress. Addressing the applicant’s implicit desire for a medical retirement, the military DES, established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law, under Title 10, United 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. On the other hand, operating under a different set of laws, Title 38, U.S.C., which governs the DVA compensation system, was written to allow awarding compensation ratings for any condition with a nexus with military service. The DVA is chartered to offer compensation and care to all eligible veterans for any service-connected disease or injury without regard to whether it was unfitting for continued military service. Thus the two systems represent a continuum of medical care and disability compensation that starts with entry on active duty and extends for the life of the veteran. The applicant has not met the burden of proof of error or injustice that warrants the desired change of the record. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 20 Aug 2013 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). As of this date, this office has not received a 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 an 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 Offices of Primary Responsibility (OPR) and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In view of the above and in the absence of persuasive 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-2013-02094 in Executive Session on 11 Feb 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Apr 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 9 Jul 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 19 Jul 2013. Exhibit E. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 14 Aug 2013. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 20 Aug 2013. Panel Chair