RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01106 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His type of discharge be changed to reflect that he was medically retired. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Approximately one year after his last deployment to Iraq (23 Jan 06-17 Aug 07), he sought medical care with a civilian psychologist because his significant other observed him being more irritable, anxious and depressed as well as having nightmares, frequent outbursts and drinking more alcohol. He did not divulge his deployments to the psychologist. The psychologist diagnosed him with bipolar disorder in 2010 and he submitted the medical documentation to his command. He was told by command since he was close enough to the end of his enlistment, that he could finish it and be honorably discharged on 5 May 10. He was not informed that he could be medically retired due to his psychiatric condition. In August and December of 2013, he was admitted to two different inpatient programs to treat PTSD. In January 2014, a conversation with a fellow veteran, who was medically retired for PTSD, convinced him to submit his request to the board. The Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider his untimely application because he is not bipolar, but has been diagnosed with PTSD. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 10 Aug 00 the applicant entered the Air National Guard. On 2 Oct 06, the applicant received an honorable discharge. He was credited with 5 years and 6 months of active service. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR medical consultant recommends denial. The applicant is appealing for a medical retirement so there must be sufficient medical evidence to support the appeal. The burden of proof lies with the applicant to supply sufficient evidence of an unfitting physical or mental health condition that was present at the time of the separation from military service and represented the reason for service termination. Apart from the absence of supporting medical documentation during the period of service, there were no DVA records for review for service connection. Hence, the reviewer concludes that the applicant’s level of job performance (absence of unsatisfactory EPRs or fitness profiles) and ability to perform his assigned duties was at a satisfactory level and any mental or physical condition present was not the reason for service termination or impaired his ability to perform his assigned task. Furthermore, the reviewer notes the reenlistment eligibility code 6C which is consistent with the reenlistment under review. Had the applicant been separated due to a medically disqualifying condition, the reenlistment eligibility code would likely have been designated as 6P (medically disqualified) or 6J (ineligible to re-enlist). Thus, the medical reviewer concludes that there was no unfitting physical or mental health condition of a sufficient degree which either was the cause of service determination or represented a disqualifier for re-enlistment consideration. The military 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 the member unfit for continued military service and were the cause of career termination; and then only for the degree of impairment present at the time of separation and not based on future occurrences. However, operating under a different set of laws, Title 38, U.S.C., 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 retainability, fitness to service or the narrative reason for release from military service. The DVA is also empowered to conduct periodic reevaluations for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating award as the level of impairment from a given medical condition may vary over the lifetime of the veteran. The complete BCMR medical consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 24 Nov 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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 and adopt its 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. 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 documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-01106 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Mar 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, Medical Consultant, dated 21 Oct 14 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Nov 14.