RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00612 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation (Item 28) on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty be corrected to reflect Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), instead of “Personality Disorder.” APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She does not have a personality disorder; she has been given a seventy percent rating for her PTSD by the Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) for a Military Sexual Trauma (MST). She was unfairly given a medical narrative without having the opportunity to meet a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and it has affected her military record. She has been unjustly deprived of several government related job opportunities and been subjected to discrimination while pursuing her education. Had she been able to meet an MEB and receive a medical discharge, her opportunities would be different. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 29 Aug 01. On 5 Jun 03, the applicant’s commander notified her that he was recommending her discharge for a condition that interferes with military service; specifically, for mental disorders. The reason for the action was that, on 7 Apr 03, the Chief, Mental Health Services, diagnosed the applicant with an Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood, in remission, Occupational Problems (job dissatisfaction), Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified with Borderline, Histrionic, and Dependent Features (Principal Reason for Hospitalization/Psychiatric Intervention), Status post self-inflicted wrist lacerations, healed without complications, and Stressors: Axis II diagnosis, and current military duty. On 5 Jun 03, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and was advised of her right to consult with legal counsel and submit statements on her own behalf. On 23 Jun 03, the discharge authority concurred with the commander’s recommendation and directed that she be honorably discharged. On 26 Jun 03, the applicant was discharged with an honorable characterization of service and given a narrative reason for separation of Personality Disorder and was credited with one year and ten months of active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and F. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice in the processing of the applicant’s discharge, to include the SPD code, the narrative reason for separation, and the character of service. The applicant went through a mental health evaluation with a military psychiatrist and was diagnosed with Axis I-adjustment disorder with depressed mood, in remission, occupational problems (job dissatisfaction), Personality Disorder not otherwise specified with Borderline, Histrionic, and Dependent Features (Principle reason for hospitalization/psychiatric intervention), Status post self- inflicted wrist lacerations, healed without complications, and stressors: Axis II diagnosis and current military duty. The psychiatrist determined that this personality disorder was so severe that it significantly and substantially impaired her ability to function effectively in a military environment. The applicant’s mental health evaluation stated the diagnosis did not meet retention standards for continued military service. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s request to be granted a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and removal of the personality disorder diagnosis. The applicant stated she was provided a rating from the Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) for a diagnosis of PTSD caused by a military sexual trauma (MST). She was evaluated by the Life Skills Support Center after her suicidal event and hospitalization. The hospitalization was not caused by a medically disqualifying psychiatric condition, as described in AFI 48-123, Medical Examinations and Standards, or significant severity to warrant disability processing or an MEB for continued active duty service. The level of functional impairment was not of sufficient degree to adversely affect the applicant’s ability to perform her assigned duties necessitating an MEB. After a thorough review of the applicant’s medical documentation, reviewing approximately five discussions with mental health life skills professions, no mention of a sexual or physical assault was identified in documentation provided. The applicant submitted a five page response after she received notification from her commander of an impending administrative discharge. Again, no mention was made of physical or sexual assault/misconduct that occurred during her military service. There was no documentation found in the applicant’s submission or military records that would support a diagnosis of PTSD caused by sexual trauma. If the diagnosis of PTSD was evident, it was not of a sufficient degree to impair the applicant’s ability to perform duties commensurate with her rank or grade. The DVA is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition with an established nexus with military service, without regard to its proven or demonstrated impact upon a member’s retain ability, fitness to serve, or the narrative reason for release from service. The DVA may also conduct intermittent reevaluations for the purpose of modifying the disability rating award as the level of impairment from a given medical condition may improve or worsen over the lifetime of the veteran. A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice that incurred when the applicant was administratively discharged from the Air Force with a narrative reason of Personality Disorder. There is no record of PTSD in the applicant’s medical records supplied for this case nor is there a description of a traumatic experience aside from the events that led to her psychiatric hospitalization in Dec 2002. It was observed that the applicant’s report of symptom etiology subsequent to inpatient treatment was always focused on her work dissatisfaction, with no reference to a trigger event in the form of a traumatic experience. The applicant has contended that she was discharged for a mental health condition without being permitted to first having an MEB. IAW DoD Instruction 1332.38 Disability Evaluation System, (in effect at the time of the applicant’s discharge) in order for the applicant to have been entered into the disability evaluation system (DES) she must have met criteria for such a referral as listed in Enclosure 3 Part 2 of the instruction. First and foremost, she must have been determined to suffer from a disability. Enclosure 2 paragraph 1.25. of the instruction defines a physical disability as “Any impairment due to disease or injury, regardless of degree, that reduces or prevents an individual's actual or presumed ability to engage in gainful employment or normal activity. The term ‘physical disability’ includes mental disease, but not such inherent defects as behavioral disorders, adjustment disorders, personality disorders, and primary mental deficiencies.” The applicant’s service treatment record contains diagnoses of a personality disorder and adjustment disorder from the start of treatment through termination. An independent review, conducted at the applicant’s request, verified the appropriateness of the recommendations made by her treating psychiatrist. The Military Department operates under Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), and must base its actions upon evidence available at the “snap shot” in time of final military disposition. The medical records reviewed for this case, which document the applicant’s functioning during military service and at the time of discharge, do not support the presence of a mental health condition meeting criteria for initiating DES processing as listed in DoD Instruction 1332.38. Her mental health diagnoses at discharge were not eligible for MEB review as described in AFI 48-123, Medical Examinations and Standards, but were potentially unsuitable for continued military service, making her vulnerable to administrative separation. The DVA operates under a different set of laws (Title 38, U.S.C.), with a different purpose, and is authorized to offer service connection and compensation for any medical condition for which it has established a nexus with military service regardless of the narrative reason for separation or the length of time transpired since discharge. The DVA is also able to conduct periodic reassessments of a veteran’s medical condition and adjust its ratings based on the progression of a disability. In keeping with this mission, the applicant reported receiving a compensable rating for a mental health condition despite the passage of nearly a decade following discharge from military service. In sum, a post-service VA rating does not equate to a Military Department conclusion that a Service member required a DES processing at the time of discharge. A complete copy of the AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit F. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 30 Oct 14 and 15 Jun 15, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibits E and G). 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. 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 (OPR) and the AFBCMR Medical and Clinical Psychology Consultants and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material 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-2014-00612 in Executive Session on 11 Aug 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00612 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Jan 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 10 Apr 14. Exhibit D. Memorandum, BCMR MED CONSLT, dated 22 Oct 14. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Oct 14. Exhibit F. Memorandum, BCMR CLIN PSYCH CONSLT, dated 9 Jun 15. Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBR dated 15 Jun 15.