ADDENDUM TO 
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01057-2

	COUNSEL: 
	 
 	HEARING: NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS:

The 30 percent compensable physical disability rating the Air Force assigned her be increased.    

RESUME OF THE CASE:  

On 27 Aug 15, the Board considered and granted the applicant’s request to change her narrative reason for separation of “Miscellaneous/General Reasons,” to a medical discharge.  She contended court-martial documents revealed she was sexually assaulted and the defense indicated she should have been medically discharged.  It was not until her sexual assault was revealed during the court-martial that she was able to get out.  As a result of the trauma she received from the sexual assault, she has post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rated her with a 100 percent disability.  The Board determined the evidence of the court-martial, combined with the DVA documentation, was sufficient to establish the applicant was “an emotionally distressed airman who was suffering from a mental health condition that more likely than not rendered her unfit for military service.”  The Board directed the applicant be place on the Temporary Duty Retired List (TDRL) with a 50 percent compensable disability rating, and permanently retired with a 30 percent compensable disability rating.  For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s original request and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit I, and the AFBCMR Directive and correcting documentation at Exhibit K.   

On 28 Oct 16, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration of her original application seeking an increase in her assigned disability rating of 30 percent.   She contends if her perpetrator, who was a serial rapist, had not been allowed into the service after what he did to a woman at his college, her life would not be what it is.  She would not have PTSD.  She wanted to make a career of the Air Force.  The Air Force just let her out without properly looking to make sure she was safe.  Now, any time someone sees the amount of time she served they want the story behind her 

On 4 Apr 18, the applicant was provided a new DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, indicating she separated from active duty on 30 Oct 09 and was temporarily medically retired with a narrative reason for discharge of “Disability, Temporary (Enhanced),” and was credited with nine months and four days of active duty service. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Psychologic Advisor recommends partially granting the application.  According to the ROP in the original case file granting the applicant’s request, the applicant was to be removed from the TDRL on 30 Apr 10 and transferred to the Permanent Disability Retired List (PDRL).  However, the DD Form 214 that was included in the applicant’s file for appeal did not reflect this statement and instead her narrative summary for discharge currently reads “Disability, Temporary (Enhanced).”  It appeared her DD Form 214 was never updated and this advisor recommends changing her narrative summary to reflect her permanent discharge from service. 

Concerning the applicant’s request for an increase to her disability rating, the two previous medical and clinical psychology advisories contained in the original case do an excellent job of summarizing the applicant’s file for the Board and will not be reiterated here.  This psychological advisor recommends the Board review those advisories again for a holistic clinical picture of applicant’s mental health condition and history while in service. 

This advisor fully concurs with the opinions rendered by the medical and clinical psychology advisors.  The recommendations set forth by both advisors indicating the applicant should be permanently retired with a 30 percent disability rating were based on extensive review of her mental health records with much thought, deliberation, and consideration.  Their recommended disability rating appeared to be appropriate based on the available information presented in her mental health records.  The applicant has not provided any new evidence to support her contention for an increase in her compensable disability rating.  Further, the military’s Disability Evaluation System (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 “snapshot” time of separation and not based on post-service progression of disease or injury.  To the contrary, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), operating under a different set of law, Title 38, U.S.C., is empowered to offer compensation for any medical condition with an established nexus with military service, without regard to its impact upon a member’s fitness to serve, the narrative reason for release from service, or the length time transpired since the date of discharge.  The DVA may also conduct periodic reevaluations for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating awards as the level of impairment from a given medical condition may vary [improve or worsen] over the lifetime of the veteran.  Therefore, this psychological advisor recommends denial of applicant’s request for an increase in her disability rating.   The complete advisory is at Exhibit L.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 11 Jun 18 for comment (Exhibit M), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES: 

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.   After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of the AFBCMR Psychologic Advisor and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS:

The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2014-01057-2 in Executive Session on 1 Aug 18:

Panel Chair
Member
Member

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit I:	Original Record of Proceedings (ROP), dated 8 Sep 15. 
Exhibit J:  RECON application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 28 Oct 16.
Exhibit K:	Military Human Resources Record (MHRR) (Excerpt)  
Exhibit L:	Advisory opinion, AFBCMR Psychological Advisor, dated 5 Jun 18.
Exhibit M:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 11 Jun 18.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.