RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00044
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

	APPLICANT	COUNSEL:  None

	SSN	HEARING DESIRED: No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His entry-level separation be changed to a medical retirement and Block 28 on his DD Form 214 be changed from "Personality Disorder" to "Medical."

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His "Personality Disorder" was depression caused by extreme pain.  The Air Force wanted him to solve his depression, but was unwilling to help him solve the pain.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 15 May 01, the applicant enlisted in the regular Air Force as an airman basic for a period of six years.  

The applicant while in basic training, was seen twice in the medical clinic for shin splints.  He successfully completed the physical portion of basic training.  He completed the two mile run in 15 minutes, 35 seconds (the minimum standard is 18 minutes).  After basic training the applicant was assigned to Sheppard AFB and began experiencing foot pain.  He was diagnosed as having plantar fasciitis.  His treatment consisted of shoe inserts, anti-inflammatory medicines and restriction from running.  He was referred for a podiatry evaluation; however, he was separated prior to the podiatry evaluation.

On 11 Jul 01, the applicant began individual and group counseling at the Mental Health Clinic for depressed mood, anxiety and difficulty adjusting to military life.  After several individual
and group sessions the applicant's symptoms did not improve and he agreed to a recommended Command Directed Evaluation for separation.  A mental  health  evaluation  was  accomplished on 21 Aug 01 and revealed the applicant suffered from an Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood, unsuiting for continued military service, not a personality disorder.

The applicant was notified on 28 Aug 01 that he was being discharged for a mental disorder based on the 22 Aug 01 mental health evaluation.  The Commander indicated that before recommending discharge, the applicant was referred to the Life Skills Support Center for evaluation and counseling regarding his inability to cope with military life.

The applicant was discharged on 31 Aug 01, with an entry-level separation.  He served 3 months and 16 days of active service.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, states individuals are considered in an entry level status for the first six months of service and any separation which occurs before the completion of six months will receive an uncharacterized entry level separation, a did the applicant.  The applicant's condition, plantar fasciitis, was service incurred and ratable, but he was not eligible to receive severance pay because he had not completed six months of service.  The reason for the applicant's separation was his adjustment disorder which was unsuiting and not ratable.  The evidence of record clearly establishes that the applicant's discharge was appropriate to the circumstances of his separation.  However, the fact that “Personality Disorder” appears on the DD Form 214 as the reason for discharge is incorrect.  The current AFI that regulates separations for mental health problems does not allow coding for other than “Personality Disorder,” an entirely different DSM-IV code sequence from that with which the applicant was diagnosed.  It is unfair to apply an erroneous label to an individual because of a recognized administrative shortfall.  The medical consultant recommends that the applicant’s reason for separation be changed to read:  Secretarial Authority, with the corresponding separation code of “JFF,” and no change to his reenlistment code.  The reenlistment code reflects the uncharacterized entry-level separation he received.

A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPDS states the purpose of the military disability evaluation system is to maintain a fit and vital force by 
separating or retiring members who are unable to perform the duties of their office, rank and grade.  The members who are separated or retired by reasons of physical disability may be eligible for certain disability compensation.  The Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) makes the decision whether a member is to be processed through the disability evaluation system, when the member is determined medically disqualified for continued military service.  The member's medical treatment facility makes the decision to conduct an MEB.  Service members who are separated or discharged from active service based on a service connected medical condition are not considered unfit, but unsuitable at the time of their release should contact the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for treatment and possible compensation.  The DVA provides medical care for veterans after leaving active duty; and they may increase or decrease a member's service connected disability rating based on the seriousness of the medical condition throughout the member's life span.

DPPDS concurs with the AFBCMR Medical Consultant to change Block 28 on his DD Form 214 to Secretarial Authority.  They state the applicant has not submitted any evidence to support that he was unfit for duty due to a physical disability and recommend his request for a medical retirement be denied (Exhibit D).

HQ AFPC/DPPRS states the Department of Defense (DOD) determined that, if a member served less than 180 days of continuous active service, he would receive an entry level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation was initiated.  The separation is uncharacterized because it would be unfair to the member and the service to try and characterize the limited time served.  DPPRS concurs with the comments and recommendations of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant.   DPPRS further states the discharge was consistent with procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Also, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  Based on the evidence provided, DPPRS recommends changing block 28 on his DD 214 from "Personality Disorder" to "Secretarial Authority" with a Separation Program designator of "JFF" (Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that the BCMR Medical Consultant confirms that the problems with his feet are service connected.  He disagrees with the FACT portion of the memorandum.  His referral to podiatry was delayed and delayed until it was time for him to be separated and he was never seen by the podiatry clinic.  He requested for his feet to 
be x-rayed and was told that it was not necessary.  He was constantly harassed for not being able to run or march.  He was in constant pain.  It was the pain that he could not deal with not the military life.  He enjoyed his class work and thinks that he would have enjoyed working on the equipment and he had planned on being in the military for a long time.

He accepted the discharge because he thought it was the only way he could get rid of the pain.  His foot problems were real.  He feels the Air Force assumed he was goldbricking, but the civilian doctors found the problem after a few x-rays.  He wonders why the Air Force was unwilling to help him with his foot pain.

The civilian doctors tell him his foot problems will only get worse not better.  He is unable to do the work that he did before his enlistment in the Air Force.  His foot pain does not allow him to do the work of electrician's apprentice.

He feels if the Air Force had treated his foot problem correctly he would still be in the Air Force and not in pain everyday.  Now he's been told that if he had suffered through the pain for three more months he would have received a medical retirement.  It is too late to fix the problem with his feet, but he requests the Board to do the right thing now.

Applicant's complete response is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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 in regard to the reason for applicant's separation.  Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant that, in order to correct an injustice of improperly labeling the applicant's disorder, his narrative reason for separation and separation code should be changed.  In view of the foregoing, we recommend the applicant's records be corrected as indicated.

4.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error injustice concerning the applicant's request for a disability retirement.  The applicant has provided no evidence showing that he was unfit at the time 
of his separation.  Notwithstanding the change we propose to the narrative reason for his separation, the applicant has not submitted sufficient evidence to show that the decision to separate him was improper based on the situation at that time.  Therefore, we are in agreement with the comments and recommendation of the Air Force concerning this issue and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or an injustice.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 31 August 2001, he was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Secretarial Authority, and issued a Separation Program Designator code of “JFF.”

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 01-02616 in Executive Session on 22 May 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

All members voted to correct the records as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 28 Dec 01, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 
	12 Feb 02.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 18 Mar 02.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 21 Mar 02.
	Exhibit F.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Apr 02.
	Exhibit G.	Applicant’s Response, dated 11 Apr 02.