RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04690 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be allowed to stay in the Air Force Reserve. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His medical condition has not caused him to be unfit for duty. However, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) and Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) erroneously use his condition to facilitate his separation from the Reserve. Some of the information used in the processing of his FPEB occurred prior to his enlistment. He has been performing his duties for nine years and although he had some life stress, he has overcome and prevailed. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he served in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of Technical Sergeant (E-6) during the matter under review. On 26 June 2013, an AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report, was initiated that restricted the applicant’s duty and mobility from 26 June 2013 through 26 June 2014. Specifically, the applicant was required to undergo a fitness for duty determination. On 28 June 2013, according to the applicant’s narrative summary (NARSUM), his mental health professional deemed him not to meet standards for continued military service due to his diagnosis of major depression and suicidal attempts in 2011 and 2013. Specifically, he is not medically suited for a deployed environment. On 3 July 2013, a clinical social worker recommended the applicant’s referral to a medical evaluation board (MEB) due to the results his fitness for duty evaluation administered on 28 June 2013. On 26 August 2013, the applicant’s unit commander with support of the wing commander requested he be returned to duty, even with restrictions. On 11 September 2013, the Chief, Aerospace Medicine and Professional Services Division Directorate, Health Services, determined the applicant medically disqualified for continued military duty in accordance with AFI 48-123, Medical Examinations and Standards. Specifically, he was diagnosed with major depression, suicidal attempts. On 18 February 2014, the President, IPEB USAF Physical Disability Division Directorate of Airman and Airman and Family Care, determined the applicant’s condition to be unfitting and incompatible with the rigors of military service. Specifically, the applicant’s mental health condition and the need for an antipsychotic medication for mood stabilization prevent him from being eligible for deployment. His condition required regular and frequent follow-up with mental health, and placed him at risk of complications. On 18 March 2014, the applicant refuted his condition to be unfitting and requested his case be referred to the FPEB solely for a fitness determination. On 11 April 2014, the FPEB found the applicant to be unfit to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating due to his diagnosis of Depressive Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified. It was determined he would likely require continued antidepressant medication and long-term therapy to assist in identifying triggers and managing stressors for the long-haul. His depressive disorder was chronic in nature, as displayed by his history of mental health treatment and support. Although depression may show cyclical improvement, the overall long-term predictability of his condition was of high concern as a risk to the member and the mission. On 14 April 2014, the applicant disagreed with the FPEB recommendation, disputed their reasoning, and submitted a statement substantiating his fitness to be returned to duty. On 22 April 2014, the Air Force Legal Operations Agency (AFLOA) disability evaluation attorney argued the standard for deciding whether someone is unfit for duty is whether “the member, due to physical disability, is unable to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating.” In this case the applicant adequately performed his duties from the time he joined the reserves through referral into the Disability Evaluation System (DES) process, and continued to do so each day as an air reserve technician (ART). Therefore, he should be found fit and allowed to return to duty. On 16 September 2014, SAFPC concurred with the previous boards that the member was unfit for continued military duty. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFD recommends denial. The preponderance of evidence reflects no error or injustice occurred during the applicant’s disability process or at time of separation. The applicant states some of the information that was brought up in the FPEB case actually occurred before he enlisted in the Air Force Reserve. However, he addressed that concern in his appeal to SAFPC which was a part of the file used in their adjudication of his case. Although the applicant contends SAFPC and the FPEB made a mistake and used reasons for him to be discharged “when in fact [his] medical condition did not cause him to be unfit for duty”, he fully utilized his due process and addressed his concerns both orally and in writing during the DES process. Nevertheless, the outcome was the same at each level of appeal. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD 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 23 December 2014 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 timely filed. 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 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. 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-2014-04690 in Executive Session on 24 June 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-04690 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 November 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPFD, dated 23 December 2014. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 February 2015.