RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02123 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be found unfit and medically discharged for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) with a disability rating of no less than 30 percent. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Air Force erred by not properly considering his diagnosis of PTSD during the separation process. Because his disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) was higher than his Air Force disability rating, his disability rating by the Air Force unjustly precluded a disability retirement. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 22 Jan 02. On 28 May 11, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, with a narrative reason for separation of “disability, severance pay, non-combat,” and was credited with nine years, four months, and seven days of active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs), which are included at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPFD recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The Department of Defense and the DVA disability evaluation systems operate under separate laws. Under Title 10, USC, Physical Evaluation Boards must determine if a member's condition renders them unfit for continued military service relating to their office, grade, rank or rating. The fact a person may have a medical condition does not mean the condition is unfitting for continued military service. To be unfitting, the condition must be such that it alone precludes the member from fulfilling their military duties. If the board renders a finding of unfit, the law provides appropriate compensation due to the premature termination of their career. Further, it must be noted the AF disability boards must rate disabilities based on the member's condition at the time of evaluation; in essence a snapshot of their condition at that time. It is the charge of the DVA to pick up where the AF must, by law, leave off. Under Title 38, the DVA may rate any service-connected condition based upon future employability or reevaluate based on changes in the severity of a condition. This often results in different ratings by the two agencies. Documents submitted by the applicant regarding his VA rating for his MDD rated at 70 percent were dated 25 Jun 12. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C. BCMR Clinical Mental Health Consultant recommends granting the applicant’s request indicating there is evidence of an error or injustice. On 28 May 11, the applicant was discharged for Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent, mild, in partial remission, with a 10 percent disability rating, and Personality Disorder. In 2006, he was diagnosed with anxiety disorder and pathological gambling, and admitted to a 28-day inpatient treatment program for pathological gambling. Later in 2006, he was diagnosed with MDD, which followed him until his discharge. The applicant has reported that during his 2007 deployment he experienced incidents of having come under both direct and indirect fire, as well as having witnessed evidence of torture and other wartime atrocities. He was seen by a mental health provider while deployed and after returning home. In 2009, he reported having been involved in an active shooter situation, where an airman known to the applicant killed his wife and was later shot and killed by police. Following this event, the applicant’s interaction with mental health providers increased and he experienced increased irritability and interpersonal problems. In Feb 10, he was diagnosed with PTSD. In Jun 10, a mental health provider added an addendum to the NARSUM stating the applicant no longer met the criteria for PTSD. In Sep 10, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) found the applicant unfit for continued military service and assigned him a 10 percent disability rating for MDD. In Feb 11, the applicant was again assigned the diagnosis of PTSD, along with continued Major Depressive Disorder. The Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES), requires when a member is found unfit for continued service, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) reviews the case and assigns a disability rating before the date of discharge. The DVA assessed the applicant with a 70 percent service-connected disability rating while he was still on active duty. The reviewer opines that had the applicant’s case been adjudicated in the current IDES system, the applicant would have been found unfit for duty, with a disability rating of 50 percent, and placed on the Temporary Duty Retirement List (TDRL). After six months on the TDRL, the applicant would have been medically retired with the same 70 percent disability rating he received from the DVA. A complete copy of the BCMR Clinical Mental Health Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: In further support of his request, the applicant submitted a personal statement through counsel, in which he disagrees with AFPC/DPFD’s recommendation to deny but agrees with The BCMR Clinical Mental Health Consultant’s recommendation to grant. He points out he did not request the same disability rating as he received from the DVA as DPSID claimed, but requested he be found unfit and medically discharged for MDD and PTSD with a disability rating of no less than 30 percent. He feels his disabilities, to include PTSD, were not properly considered by the IPEB in Nov 10. In addition, while he agrees the different DOD and DVA disability evaluation systems may result in different ratings, the outcomes should not have been as vastly inconsistent as they were in his case. The remainder of the rebuttal summarized and reiterated the many details of the case. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2.  The application was timely filed. 3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission, to include his rebuttal response to the advisory opinion, in judging the merits of the case and agree with the opinion and recommendation of the BCMR Clinical Mental Health Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice. While we note the comments of AFPC/DPFD indicating relief should be denied because Air Force disability boards must rate disabilities based on the a member’s condition at the time of evaluation, we based our determination on the BCMR Clinical Mental Health Consultant’s contention that by the date the applicant was separated, both the Air Force and the DVA had diagnosed him with PTSD, and the DVA assessment resulted in a disability rating of 70 percent. Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below. 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 RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show: a.  On 28 May 2011, he was not discharged, but on that date he was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) with a 50 percent disability rating, due to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder, under VASRD code 9411. b.  On 28 November 2011, he was removed from the TDRL and permanently retired with a 70 percent compensatory disability rating. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-02123 in Executive Session on 22 Oct 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 May 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPFD, dated 3 Jun 14. Exhibit D.  Memorandum, BCMR Clinical Mental Health Consultant, dated 15 Sep 15. Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Sep 15. Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Oct 15.