RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02514 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation be amended to reflect “Service Connected Disability” rather than “Adjustment Disorder”. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She is receiving a 50 percent disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). In support of the applicant’s appeal, she provides documentation from the DVA and a copy of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 June 2009. A command directed Report of Behavior Health Evaluation dated 14 July 2011, shows the applicant was issued an Axis I diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood and an Axis II diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder. The report reflects - The applicant did not have a severe mental disorder and was not considered mentally disordered. However, the applicant manifested a long-standing disorder of character, behavior and adaptability that was of such severity so as to preclude further military service. The applicant presented with personality traits that interfered with her ability to work in a theatre of operations. The applicant was notified by her commander of his intent to recommend her discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208. The specific reason was based on the applicant being diagnosed with a mental disorder. She was diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood. This disorder was so severe that it precluded further military service. She was advised of her rights in this matter and after consulting with counsel she elected to submit a statement on her own behalf. In a legal review of the case file, the assistant staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended discharge. The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed an honorable discharge. The applicant was discharged on 17 October 2011. She served 2 years, 4 months and 16 days on active duty. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states they are pleased the applicant is apparently succeeding and coping well in her civilian capacity, however, it does not change the basis for which she was discharged from the Air Force. The military environment is unique and stressors encountered in such an environment may not appear or surface when removed from the military environment. The administrative discharge package clearly indicates the applicant was counseled on numerous occasions regarding her conduct and was afforded an opportunity to meet Air Force standards prior to the initiation of her discharge. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the narrative reason for separation and separation code was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. There exists no evidence of an error or injustice in the processing of the applicant’s discharge. The DPSOS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant states the applicant supplied evidence from the DVA reflecting the granting of “service connection for the same principal diagnosis made by the Military Department, Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Depressed Mood” and assigned an evaluation of 50 percent effective 18 October 2011. Neither the compensation and pension medical assessment [nor the date of evaluation] conducted by the DVA nor any related service or post-service clinical assessments are supplied for an independent analysis of the rationale for the diagnosis and the rationale for the award of compensation, e.g., whether the diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder was considered acute or whether it was considered chronic at the point of evaluation by the DVA. This diagnostic distinction is not supplied in the current documentation. Adjustment Disorder has been listed in the Air Force and Department of Defense policies as a medical condition not considered a compensable disability by the military Disability Evaluation System (DES). Although a recent revision of DoD policy [April 2013] now acknowledges that an individual with a chronic Adjustment Disorder renders the individual eligible for processing via a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB), the acute Adjustment Disorder [that is a diagnosis initially made based upon an identifiable stressor, usually lasting no more than six months] continues to be held as non-compensable and non-ratable by the military departments. When it has been determined that an acute Adjustment Disorder is so severe as to significantly interfere with an individual’s ability to perform military service, the member is vulnerable for an involuntary discharge, under authority of AFI 36-3208 Therefore, even though the DVA has granted compensation for the applicant’s medical condition, this evidence does not invalidate the appropriateness of the military discharge disposition, which was based upon the diagnostic distinction present at the “snap shot” time of the applicant’s release from military service; notwithstanding the fact that the applicant’s disability rating was made effective the day after her release from military service. Finally, for awareness, the DVA is authorized, under Title 38 United States Code, to offer compensation for any medical condition with a nexus with military service, without regard its proven impact upon a former service member’s fitness to serve, the narrative reason for release from service, or the duration of time passed since separation. This is the reason why an individual may be released from service for one reason and later receive a compensation rating for one or more medical conditions that were not considered militarily unfitting or eligible for military disability processing at the time of military service. The DVA is also empowered to conduct periodic re-evaluations for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating determinations (increase or decrease) as the level of impairment from a given medical condition may vary (worsen or improve) over the lifetime of the veteran. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: On 24 October 2013, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit E). 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 timely filed. 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, it is our opinion that given the circumstances surrounding her separation from the Air Force, the narrative reason for separation assigned was proper and in compliance with the appropriate instructions. In addition, the applicant has not provided any evidence which would lead us to believe otherwise. Therefore, we agree with the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. 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 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-2013-02514 in Executive Session on 18 February 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 June 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Available Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 26 September 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 22 October 2013. Exhibit E. Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 October 2013.