RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01195
		INDEX CODE:  100.03
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed.  

2.  His narrative reason be changed from personality disorder to Bipolar II Disorder.  

3.  He receive a hardship discharge.  (By amendment at Exhibit J, his records be corrected to show he was retired because of physical disability with a compensable rating of 30%.

4.  Recoupment of the unserved portion of his Selective Enlistment Bonus (SEB) and educational loan be waived.  

5.  He receive reimbursement for his personal medical expenses.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was a distinguished graduate from technical school and took pride in his service.  Upon his discharge he knew he was being treated unjustly but he did not know who to ask or how to handle the situation.  He feels leadership should have handled his situation differently.  His discharge was too quick and unjust for a new airman.  He does not have a personality disorder and will provide information to prove this.   

In support of his request applicant provides a personal statement, summary of events, a summary of medical expenses and copies of his medical evaluations.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his four-year initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 10 November 1998.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 24 December 1998.  Records show that the applicant was a Distinguished Graduate from the Security Forces Course.
On 7 July 1999, the 377th Medical Operations Squadron, performed a mental health assessment on the applicant after a mental health evaluation was performed by the Behavioral Health Clinic, Kirtland AFB, NM, during the period 15, 17 and 22 June 1999 in which it was indicated that he had demonstrated his inability to handle current stressors.  The examiner indicated the mental health assessment diagnosed him as having an adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct.  The recommendation to the commanding officer was that the applicant would be unable to function effectively as a member of the Security Forces and cross training to another career field would be unlikely to produce significant changes in his symptoms.  The recommendation further stated that the applicant did not desire treatment, but rather desired separation; therefore, administrative separation would be most likely to serve the interests of the mission and the applicant.  

On 2 August 1999, in accordance with AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, Chapter 5, Section B, Involuntary ‑‑ Convenience of the Government, paragraph 5.11, Conditions that Interfere with Military Service, specifically, paragraph 5.11.1 Mental Disorders, the commander initiated discharge proceedings against the applicant.  The applicant was advised of his rights in this matter.  After consulting military legal counsel, the applicant waived his right to submit statements in his behalf.  On 16 August 1999, the discharge authority directed that the applicant be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, Chapter 5, Section B, Involuntary ‑‑ Convenience of the Government, Paragraph 5.11, Conditions that Interfere with Military Service, specifically paragraph 5.11.1, Mental Disorders, with character of service as honorable.  The applicant was discharged on 17 August 1999 by reason of “Personality Disorder” with a Separation Code of “JFX” and a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “2C.”  He had served 9 months and 8 days on active duty. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be partially granted.  The BCMR Medical Consultant states that the applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder, and not the personality disorder that appears on the DD Form 214 an error that needs to be corrected.  The BCMR Medical Consultant further states that the current AFI regulating separations for mental health problems does not allow coding for other than “personality disorder,” an entirely different code sequence from that with which the applicant was diagnosed.  The BCMR Medical Consultant states that in order to correct an injustice of improperly labeling the applicant’s disorder, the request for change of reason for discharge should be granted; however, not to the reason he requests.  The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the separation code and narrative reason be changed to Secretarial Authority, and the SPD code to KFF.  However, the BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the RE code of “2C” remain unchanged.

The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFMOA/SGZC recommends the application be denied.  SGZC states that the applicant left active duty 14 months before being diagnosed with bipolar disorder and was not eligible for military healthcare after Nov 99.  SGZC states that the Jul 99 mental health evaluation concluded that the applicant did not suffer from a severe mental disorder (such as bipolar disorder) that rendered him unfit for duty from a medical standpoint; therefore, his case was not presented to a medical evaluation board. 

The SGZC evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  DPPRS states that the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  Based upon the documentation in file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  However, DPPRSP states that they concur with the BCMR Medical Consultant’s recommendation that the applicant’s separation code and narrative reason for separation be changed to “JFF – Secretarial Authority.”

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/DPPAE reviewed the RE code of 2C and states that it is correct.  However, states DPPAE, should the Board recommend changing the applicant's separation code to JFF “Secretarial Authority” the unearned portion of his Enlistment Bonus will not be recouped. 

The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit F.  

AFPC/DPPAT recommends the application be denied.  DPPAT states that according to a Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) representative at the Decatur GA regional office, the applicant was certified for enrollment at Delta State for the Fall 99, Spring 00, and Summer 00 terms but did not attend the Summer term.  DPPAT states that the DVA initiated overpayment action when they learned that he did not attend the Summer term; however, applicant confirmed through an automated system on 10 Jul 00 that he attended the term in question.  DPPAT states that it would not seem appropriate for one federal agency to waiver repayment of a debt owed to another federal agency and since the overpayment letter informed him of his right to appeal the overpayment he should exercise his appeal rights by providing the DVA with proof he attended school during the Summer 00 term.
(See Exhibit G.)
DFAS-POCC/DE recommends the application be denied.  DFAS-POCC states that the applicant enlisted on 10 Nov 98 under the SEB for a term of 6 years for a bonus of $4,000.00 and received payment on 19 May 99.  DFAS-POCC states that the applicant was separated on 7 Aug 99 with an SPD code of JFX which requires recoupment of any unearned portion of enlistment bonuses when the member voluntarily or because of misconduct does not complete the term of enlistment for which the member was paid.  Currently, states DFAS-POCC, the debt balance of $2,818.33 was transferred to the Department of Defense Debt Management system after his separation.  DFAS-POCC further states that the applicant filed a final travel claim with the separation section, Kirtland AFB, but has not received a response.  DFAS-POCC recommends that he contact Kirtland AFB for assistance and completion of his final travel claim.

The DFAS-POCC/DE evaluation is at Exhibit H.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant advises that he partially agrees with the advisories provided; however, he believes he should qualify for a physical disability at or above 30 percent and receive reimbursement for his medical treatment.  In a letter dated 30 May 02, the applicant advises that he accepts the SPD code of JFF “Secretarial Authority” and requests all debt relief. 

The applicant’s responses are at Exhibit J. 

_________________________________________________________________

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 provided to demonstrate the existence of injustice that would warrant a change in the reason for separation.  After reviewing his submission and the evidence of record, we are persuaded that some relief is warranted.  We note that the separation action taken against the applicant was in accordance with the applicable instruction.  However, after reviewing the evidence of record and the BCMR Medical Consultant’s recommendation, it is our opinion that the narrative reason improperly labels the reason for his discharge.  It appears to us that the current reason could be misconstrued to infer that his separation was due to actual “personality disorders” instead of a maladjustment to military service.  Therefore, in order to correct an injustice of improperly labeling the applicant, his narrative reason for separation should be corrected to accurately reflect the circumstances of his separation.  We have noted the applicant’s request for a waiver of the recoupment for the unserved portion of his Selective Enlistment Bonus.  By virtue of granting correction of his separation code, he will also be afforded relief from the recoupment action.  In view of the foregoing, we recommend that his record be corrected as indicated below. 

4.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice with respect to the applicant’s requests that his records be corrected to show the narrative reason for his separation be changed to “Bipolar II Disorder,” he was retired because of physical disability or discharged for hardship reasons, his RE code be changed, and he be remibursed for his personal medical expenses and for education expenses.

		a.  While not specifically stated by the applicant, it appears he believes Air Force mental health care providers misdiagnosed his condition as an adjustment disorder and that, based on a condition diagnosed subsequent to his separation, he should have been retired because of physical disability.  The primary question which must be answered is, at the time of his separation, did the applicant have a condition which was unfitting within the meaning of the governing directive, which implements the law.  The BCMR Medical consultant has stated that the answer to this question is “no.”  Having reviewed the evidence provided and deliberating over this matter, we are inclined to agree.

		b.  It should be noted that an individual’s condition at the time of separation or final disposition governs whether or not the member is referred for disability processing.  In order to be referred for disability processing, the member’s fitness for worldwide duty must be seen as questionable.  Decisions of this nature are based on accepted medical principles.  With the benefit of hindsight, we have been presented with the applicant’s assertion that his condition was misdiagnosed as an adjustment disorder when he, in fact, had a condition which could have been unfitting.  We are aware that it is a generally accepted principle that there is a progression to conditions such as the applicant’s, i.e., before the condition manifests to a degree of severity by which a firm diagnosis may be made, some symptoms occur which, in and of themselves, do not lead medical authorities to question the individual’s ability to function in society.  Therefore, while in retrospect, it may be determined that symptoms of the condition were evident before the disease reaches a severity which would allow for a definitive diagnosis, the exact nature and seriousness of the disease cannot be diagnosed with any certainty.  It appears to us that this was the situation here.

		c.  According to the applicant, in October 2000, some 14 months following his separation, he underwent a mental health evaluation by civilian mental health care providers, and his condition was diagnosed as a psychosis, referred to as a “bipolar illness” in the evidence provided for our review.  We note that in July 1999, approximately 8 months after his entry on active duty, based on his stated inability to cope with the vicissitudes of military life and his desire to separate, he underwent a psychological examination.  At that time, his condition was seen as a matter of his inability to adjust to the military environment and his administrative separation was recommended as being in the best interests of the Air Force and the individual concerned.  Notwithstanding the subsequent course of the applicant’s illness, we have seen nothing in the evidence provided which would lead us to believe that the 1999 diagnosis was erroneous or, based on accepted medical principles, contrary to the symptoms the applicant exhibited at that time.  In the absence of any indication in the record which would have caused the applicant’s superiors or health care providers to believe further mental health assessments were warranted prior to his separation, we are not persuaded that the Air Force erred in this matter.

		d.  In view of the above, we are unable to conclude on the basis of the evidence provided that the applicant was unfit at the time of his separation and that the evaluation of his case by his commanders and military medical authorities was improper or not based on accepted medical principles.  We are not unsympathetic to the applicant’s situation.  However, after reviewing all the evidence provided, we agree with the BCMR Medical Consultant and believe that the applicant’s condition became unfitting after his separation and that, as the law requires, is compensable through the DVA based on a determination by that agency that service-connection is appropriate.  Likewise, there is no indication in the evidence provided that the applicant’s situation met the regulatory criteria for a hardship discharge.  Accordingly, the applicant’s requests that his records be corrected to show he was retired because of disability or that he was discharged for hardship reasons are not favorably considered.  Likewise, since we have determined favorable consideration of the applicant’s request for disability retirement is not appropriate, his request for reimbursement for his medical expenses incurred after his separation is not possible.

		e.  Finally, we have noted the applicant’s request that he receive a waiver for his educational loan.  With respect to this issue, the applicant is advised that this matter is not within the purview of this Board since it is not possible for one federal agency to waive or consider a waiver of a debt owed to another federal agency.  As suggested by AFPC/DPPAT, the applicant should exercise his right to appeal the overpayment through the Department of Veteran Affairs.

5.  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 APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 17 August 1999, he was separated under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 1.2 (Secretarial Authority) with a separation code of JFF. 

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application AFBCMR Docket Number 01-01195 in Executive Session on 26 June 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Apr 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 24 May 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 19 Jun 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 5 Oct 01.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAT, dated 18 Mar 02.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFMOA/SGZC, dated 21 Dec 01.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, DFAS-POCC/DE, undated.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Oct 01 and 5 Apr 02.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, Applicant, dated 30 May 02.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR 01-01195

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to                            be corrected to show that on 17 August 1999, he was separated under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 1.2 (Secretarial Authority) with a separation code of JFF.

                                                                            Director
                                                                            Air Force Review Boards Agency