RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00707 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His separation be changed to a medical retirement. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should receive a medical retirement to merge with his Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) disability rating. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 6 March 2007. According to a Personnel Processing Action (PPA) printout dated 14 February 2012, the applicant requested a miscellaneous separation for dependency or hardship with an effective separation date of 30 June 2012. His commander concurred with the request stating that his separation nine months early would not negatively affect the unit. The applicant was honorably released from active duty on 30 June 2012 with a narrative reason for separation of “Miscellaneous - General Reasons” and Reentry (RE) Code “lJ” which denotes “Eligible to Reenlist but Elected to Separate.” He was credited with 5 years, 3 months and 25 days of active duty service. According to a DVA rating decision letter dated 3 October 2012, the applicant received a rating of 70 percent for service connected disability compensation. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request for a medical retirement. Based on the documentation on file in his records, the discharge to include the separation code, narrative reason for separation and character of service was appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not provide any evidence that an error or injustice occurred in the processing of his discharge. The applicant submitted a voluntary request for separation under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen. Specifically, he applied under the miscellaneous/general reasons. Per AFI 36-3208, paragraph 3.15 airmen who do not qualify for separation for another request may ask for separation under miscellaneous reasons. Therefore, the applicant’s DD Form 214 is correct and In Accordance With (IAW) DOD and Air Force instructions. A complete copy of the DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial as the applicant has not met the burden of proof to warrant changing his reason for discharge to a medical retirement. The Disability Evaluation System (DES) established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law under Title 10 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. DODI 1332.32, Physical Disability Evaluation, Enclosure 3, Part 3, Standards for Determining Unfitness Due to Physical Disability or Medical Disqualification, paragraph E3.P3.2.1, in effect at the time of his service reads, “A service member shall be considered unfit when the evidence establishes that the member, due to physical disability, is unable to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating.” Although his service treatment records clearly indicate he received evaluation and treatment for a number of medical ailments, none were determined to be so severe as to interfere with his ability to carry out his military duties. Specifically, none resulted in profile restrictions of sufficient level for 12 months or more that prohibited worldwide qualification or which warranted initiation of a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) or Deployment Availability Working Group (DAWG) review. Additionally, although he was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder, the condition did not rise to the level of severity to generate a recommendation for release from military service; despite the fact that his diagnosis evolved into a depressive disorder since release from military service. Based upon the medical evidence, the Medical Consultant found no medical condition that established, or should have established, a cause and effective relationship with the termination of the applicant’s military service. On the other hand, operating under a different set of laws (Title 38 U.S.C.), with a different purpose, the DVA is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition determined service incurred without regard to [and independent of] its demonstrated or proven impact upon a service member’s retainability, fitness to serve or narrative reason for separation. This is the reason why an individual can be found fit for release from military service and sometime thereafter receive compensation ratings from the DVA for one or more service connected medical conditions which were not proven militarily unfitting for continued service. A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 27 October 2014 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant recommends denial as the applicant did not provide compelling evidence of an error or injustice that would support changing his reason for discharge to a medical retirement. A review of the applicant’s medical record did not uncover evidence the applicant had engaged in mental health treatment via therapy or psychopharmacological intervention during his time in the military. He was seen once, 5 April 2012, in the behavioral health optimization program of his military treatment facility for a phase of life problem associated with pending separation from military service. During a periodic health assessment on 19 January 2010, he reported some neurovegetative symptoms of depression associated with dislike for his job and geographical separation from his spouse, but declined a mental health referral. The applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder by different primary care providers on five occasions between 2010 and 2012. He did not require treatment for adjustment disorder nor did his medical providers deem it to be a duty limiting condition. Documentation from his VA compensation and pension examination dated 7 August 2012 indicates the applicant reported a significant history of depression beginning early in high school that later declined but returned in a more severe form while he was deployed to Iraq in 2009. He also reported panic attacks that were triggered by crowded spaces. The applicant provided a letter from the VA dated 3 October 2012 which lists depressive disorder not otherwise specified with panic disorder without agoraphobia to include symptom of sleep impairment (rated 30 percent), left shoulder bursitis with impingement syndrome (rated 10 percent), right shoulder strain with bicep tendonitis (rated 10 percent), right wrist extensor digitorum tendonitis (rated 10 percent), thoracolumbar strain (rated 10 percent), left knee patellofemoral syndrome (rated 10 percent), right knee patellofemoral and IT band syndrome (rated 10 percent), and tinnitus (rated 10 percent). The applicant has provided a copy of a memorandum of agreement between the VA and Department of Defense (DoD) that expanded the DoD/VA Integrated Pilot DES. Although not explicitly stated by the applicant, he appears to intend for this document to offer support for tying his VA ratings to a rationale for a military medical retirement. The Clinical Psychology Consultant notes IAW DoD Instruction 1332.38 (in use at the time of the applicant's discharge) in order for the applicant to have been entered into the disability evaluation system (DES) he must have met criteria for such a referral as listed in Enclosure 3 Part 2 of the regulation. Specifically in this case, he must have suffered from a medical condition that was eligible at that time for referral and received optimal medical treatment benefits, or he must have been expected to be unable to return to full military duty within one year of diagnosis of his medical condition. Thus, a diagnosis alone would not trigger DES processing. The Clinical Psychology Consultant reminds the applicant that 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. In the opinion of the Clinical Psychology Consultant, 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. Alternatively, the VA 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. Therefore, post-service VA ratings do not equate to a Military Department conclusion that a service member is no longer fit for continued military service. A complete copy of the Clinical Psychological Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit F. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 2 June 2015 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit 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 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 opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has 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 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-2014-00707 in Executive Session on 14 July 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00707 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 October 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 8 August 2014. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 3 October 2014. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 October 2014. Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant, dated 20 May 2015. Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 June 2015.