RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-02283

XXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: XXXXXXXXXX
	
	HEARING: YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be referred to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) for disability processing instead of being discharged due to Reduction in Force (RIF).

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Air Force violated binding Department of Defense regulations that mandated referral to a MEB for disability processing.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former Air Force staff sergeant.  On 31 Jan 15, the applicant was released from active duty under the RIF and was credited with 12 years, 4 months and 29 days of total active service.

On 9 Jul 15, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) evaluated the applicant’s diagnosis of tinnitus, chronic lumbar spine strain, cervical spine degenerative changes, bilateral plantar fasciitis, and hiatal hernia and granted him a 10 percent combined disability rating.  The applicant’s claim for PTSD and anxiety was denied.

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denying the application indicating the applicant has not met the burden of proof of an error or injustice to warrant processing him through the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES).  The mere presence of a physical defect or condition does not qualify a member for disability retirement or discharge.  The physical defect or conditions must render the member unfit for duty.  Although counsel argues the applicant was unable to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, and rating, there was no evidence of an impediment to duty, based upon the plethora of accomplishments, requiring both mental and physical stamina in the applicant’s performance reports up through his final reporting period.  

Furthermore, although waived from running, the applicant was cleared to take the walk test.  The current AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program, reads, “The Air Force uses the 1.5-mile run and 2.0 kilometer walk to provide an estimate of an Airman’s cardiorespiratory (aerobic) fitness.”

Additionally, the DVA-sponsored provider opined the applicant did not meet criteria for PTSD, although there was exposure to qualifying traumatic events.  The focus of the applicant’s treatment was “related to relational problems, both marital and work related.”

Addressing the applicant’s concerns for a cardiac condition, although reportedly showing a rapid heart rate on initial emergency examination, there was no evidence or history of an aberrant conduction pathway within the heart.  In the final assessment by cardiology, the applicant was cleared to separate.

Nevertheless, there is a statistical long-term risk for progression and complications resulting from aortic root dilation or aortic ectasia.  However, there is insufficient evidence to declare this condition as an alternative cause for career termination, in its state at the time of discharge.

Finally, had the applicant undergone a MEB and his case was referred to a PEB, the Military Department rating disposition, if found unfit, would be based upon the evidence present at the “snapshot” time of military service.  Under the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES), the Military Department would be bound to assign the disability ratings, as determined by the DVA, to the condition(s) found unfitting.  Therefore, based upon the collective evidence of record, to include the disability rating issuances made effective the day following the applicant’s date of discharge, at best, he would have been discharged with severance pay [which would now be recouped by the DVA] had he been found unfit for his recalcitrant plantar fasciitis and shin splints.  There was also insufficient evidence that the applicant should have been found individually unfit due to back pain, cervical degenerative disc disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, tension headaches, irritable bowel syndrome, tinnitus, right shoulder strain, or his Partner Relational Problem.  Although the latter was also claimed as PTSD, the applicant did not meet criteria for this diagnosis following his C&P Examinations in CY 2015, nor was he diagnosed or treated for this condition during his military service.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

The AFBCMR Psychological Consultant recommends denying the application indicating there is insufficient evidence the applicant had any unfitting mental health conditions to include PTSD that would meet the criteria for an MEB or medical retirement.  A thorough review of applicant’s records revealed he was never diagnosed with PTSD in 2009.  He received mental health services from 11 Dec 09 to 19 Jan 10 for sleep problems, marital problems, and financial concerns.  There was referral of his deployment experience such as the development of feeling agitated and having sleep problems since returning from deployment, but was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Partner Relational Problem and not PTSD.

An extensive review of applicant’s records revealed that he did not have any unfitting mental health conditions while in service that would warrant a referral to the MEB.  He was also never placed on a duty limiting condition profile signifying that his mental health condition impacted his ability to reasonably perform his duties in his office, rank, grade, or rating.  A mental health diagnosis does not automatically equate to the condition or disorder being determined as unfitting for service.  The applicant was provided with treatment whenever his symptoms became too unmanageable for him and each time he received treatment, his symptoms were reported to have been improved, reduced and better managed.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

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

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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 and injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationales and recommendations of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and the AFBCMR Psychological Consultant and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

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 the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

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.

The application was adjudicated without a personal appearance.

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-2017-02283 in Executive Session on 24 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 24 Mar 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFBCMR Medical Advisor, dated 22 May 18.
Exhibit D:	Advisory opinion, AFBCMR Psychological Advisor, dated 6 Sep 18.
Exhibit E:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 18 Sep 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.