RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-00729

	COUNSEL: YES

	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Bipolar Disorder and Adjustment Disorder be recognized as disabling conditions and service connected. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Through counsel, while he was in service he was diagnosed with Brief Psychosis, Bipolar Disorder and Adjustment Disorder by military doctors, the Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) and independent medical practitioners.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former Air Force first lieutenant. 

On 22 Feb 10, the applicant was diagnosed with Brief Psychotic Disorder by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).

On 4 Jun 10, the applicant was found unfit by the IPEB for “Brief Psychotic Disorder, with marked stressors, resolved” and recommended for discharge with severance pay and a 10 percent disability rating.  On 8 Jun 10, the applicant appealed the IPEB’s decision.

On 30 Aug 10, The Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) concurred with the IPEB’s decision and rating and on 31 Aug 10, the applicant appealed to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Counsel (SAFPC).

On an unspecified date, the SAFPC concurred with the FPEB decision.

On 30 Nov 11, the applicant was honorably discharged for reason of “Disability, Severance Pay, Non Combat.”

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

BCMR Psychological Advisor recommends denying the application and finds insufficient evidence to support the applicant’s request for a change to his records.   

The Disability Evaluation System (DES) 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 (VA), 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 of time transpired since the date of discharge. The VA 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. 

The vast discrepancy between the applicant’s ratings and diagnosis in such a short period of time is baffling as the applicant was determined by military providers that his diagnosis of Brief Psychotic Disorder (not Bipolar Disorder) was resolved and asymptomatic , the two independent psychological evaluations that the applicant sought on his own because he wanted to be retained reported he had no psychological symptoms or disorders, and he did not report to any military providers or sought treatment at any military treatment facilities for experiencing psychological symptoms or distress at around the time of discharge.  The DVA awarded the applicant a 50% disability rating for Bipolar Disorder that was effective the following day after his discharge from service. The level of impairment and diagnosis from the DVA differ greatly from the applicant’s Air Force records. It is very possible and appeared that the applicant may have inconsistently reported his symptoms to different providers which may explain the disparity in ratings, impairment and evaluations. The applicant’s MEB was processed in 2010, IDES was still in the process of being implemented and so applicant’s MEB and rating was processed under the legacy system which may also explain the two different disability ratings.  Although the applicant was given a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder briefly while in service, an assigned or given adjustment disorder diagnosis does not always equate to the condition being considered unfitting for continued service causing career termination. His adjustment disorder was not found to be an unfitting condition for continued service.

The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 20 Aug 18 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was not 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 injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of the BCMR Psychologist and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The Board also notes the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552, and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).  Moreover, the applicant has offered no plausible reason for the delay in filing the application.  The Board finds the application untimely and concludes it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the application was not timely filed; it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay; 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-2017-00729 in Executive Session on 3 Oct 18:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

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

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 23 Feb 17.
	Exhibit B: Military Human Resources Record [Excerpts or Pertinent Extracts]
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, BCMR Psychological Advisor, dated 16 Aug 18.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 20 Aug 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.