RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00904
							INDEX CODE:  110.00

    							COUNSEL:  NONE

    							HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be upgraded from general to honorable and the narrative reason be changed to medical reasons.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He suffered from a mental condition that explained his pattern of misconduct that led to his discharge.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement and a copy of his medical record progress notes.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 22 October 1980 and reenlisted on 30 September 1984.

On 3 December 1986, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending him for discharge for minor disciplinary infractions, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-46.  The commander recommended an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge without probation and rehabilitation (P&R).  The commander advised his reasons for this action being taken were:  (1) financial irresponsibility (Failure to pay janitorial fees).  (2) Financial irresponsibility (Failure to pay deferred payment from the military clothing sales store).  (3) Failure to go (Failure to report for an assigned detail at Barracks 540 on 4 July 1985).  (4) Failure to go.  (Failure to report for duty at the time prescribed on 17 July 1986).  (5) Drunk on duty.  (On 17 July 1986 after reporting for duty late, the applicant was found to be drunk.) (6) Suicidal gestures.  (On 26 July 1986 he was confined in the XXXXX Regional Hospital, Columbus, MS, and the Columbus AFB Hospital for suicidal gestures).  The commander advised the applicant if he was discharged, he would be ineligible for reenlistment in the Air Force.  Applicant was also advised he had a right to consult counsel, present his case to an administrative discharge board, be represented by legal counsel at a board hearing, submit statements in his own behalf in addition to, or in lieu of, the  board hearing, or waive the above rights.

On 11 December 1986, the applicant acknowledged the letter of notification.  He also offered a conditional waiver of the rights associated with an administrative discharge board hearing.  He stated this waiver was contingent on his receipt of no less than a general discharge, if the recommendation for discharge was approved.

On 22 December 1986, the base commander recommended the conditional waiver submitted by the applicant be accepted.

On 16 January 1987, the Staff Judge Advocate recommended approval of applicant’s discharge with a general discharge without P&R.

On 21 January 1987, the discharge authority accepted the applicant’s conditional waiver and directed that he be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.  The applicant’s discharge was effected under the provisions of AFR 39-10 because of Misconduct on 29 January 1987.  He was credited with 6 years, 3 months and 8 days of total active duty service.  The DD Form 214 in applicant’s personnel folder shows his characterization of service as honorable instead of general.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant states that the applicant was discharged in 1987 for a pattern of misconduct that he contends was the result of his Bipolar Disorder that went undiagnosed until 1999.  The applicant’s service medical record reflects problems with mood and alcohol abuse starting within 6 months of his initial enlistment.  Despite this, his duty performance reflected in his performance reports was excellent up to and including his last year on active duty when recurring problems with financial irresponsibility, failure to report to work and being drunk on duty resulted in disciplinary action and discharge.  The August 1986 psychiatry evaluation following a suicide attempt gave him a diagnosis of adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotion and conduct.  This evaluation was not a command directed evaluation and there was no recorded history that the evaluating psychiatrist was aware of the disciplinary problems the applicant was having.  There were no follow-up psychiatry evaluations with recurrent behavioral problems, but it must also be noted that there is no documentation to reflect whether there was anything in the applicant’s behavior that would have prompted a reasonable person to conclude that there may be an underlying psychiatric problem other than the adjustment disorder.

Bipolar disorder is an illness characterized by a period of sustained disruption of mood, associated with distortions of perception, somatic functioning, and impairment in social functioning.  Age of onset is typically between 15 and 30 years of age.  The clinical manifestations include periods of mania, a state of elevated, expansive, or irritable mood lasting at least a week, and periods of depressed mood or even episodes of major depression.  Bipolar disorder is classified into two types, type I describes patients experiencing predominantly problems with mania, and type II those with more difficulty with depression.  Manic episodes are characterized by inflated self esteem, decreased need for sleep, excessive talkativeness, racing of thoughts, increased goal directed activity, easy distractibility, and excessive pursuit of pleasurable activities without the normal regard for the consequences of excess (spending money, sexual encounters, etc.)  The most common behavioral symptoms associated with manic episodes include pressured speech, hyperverbosity, physical hyperactivity, agitation, decreased need for sleep, hypersexuality and extravagance.  Impaired insight is a frequent component of the manic episode.  Bipolar disorder is marked by a course of relapses and remissions, is frequently associated with substance abuse, with a high rate of suicide attempt (25-50%) and successful suicide (15%).  Other conditions may produce symptoms similar to bipolar disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct manifests with symptoms of depression, anxiety and inappropriate behavior such as vandalism, reckless driving, fighting, and defaulting on legal responsibilities (i.e., financial responsibilities, etc).

The applicant’s contention that his behavior in 1986 was a manifestation of a bipolar disorder is plausible but cannot be ascertained from the available records.  There is no evidence that the history, symptoms and signs as recorded in his medical records at that time are in error.  His symptoms may not have been of the character or severity necessary to suspect or diagnose bipolar disorder.  The nature of his financial irresponsibility is not detailed in the records with regard to whether it was associated with excessive irresponsibility over spending rather than merely failing to pay bills.  The evaluating psychiatrist’s diagnosis of adjustment disorder with mixed emotions and disturbance of conduct appears to have been appropriate at time of his single encounter early in the applicant’s behavioral difficulties.  That psychiatrist did not have the opportunity for follow-up evaluation to assess for any change in the applicant’s symptoms or behavior that might have suggested a different diagnosis.  It should also be kept in mind that diseases including psychiatric diseases are not static, uniform conditions but are dynamic with signs and symptoms changing over time, often resulting in evolving changes in a diagnosis or treatment plan.  It cannot be concluded that any error in diagnosis occurred.

Another issue is whether his commander should have directed a formal mental health evaluation at the time he initiated discharge proceedings since he was aware of the suicide attempt several months before.  Had such an evaluation occurred and rendered a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, the applicant would have undergone both administrative discharge proceedings for misconduct and medical evaluation board (“dual action”).  His commander, upon finding results of an MEB/PEB that would result in discharge might have elected to allow discharge due to medical reasons to proceed and not pursued administrative discharge.  Since his final performance report reflected that he was performing his duties well, it is likely the Physical Evaluation Board would have found him unfit based on his diagnosis, but rated his condition as mild or without impairment to duty performance and recommended discharge with severance pay.  If the diagnosis remained adjustment disorder at the time of his discharge proceeding, an unsuiting condition, then administrative discharge would have been indicated, thus giving the option of using “personality disorder” as the narrative reason for discharge in the DD 214.

The DD 214 in the applicant’s personnel folder shows his characterization of service as honorable and not general as the applicant believes.  The narrative reason for discharge accurately reflects the reason for discharge.

In conclusion, the applicant was discharged for misconduct with an honorable service characterization fifteen years ago.  At the time he was suffering from symptoms determined to be an adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct, an unsuiting condition.  There is no clear evidence to clearly support or refute the applicant’s otherwise plausible contention that his behavior was the result of undiagnosed bipolar disorder.  In his application for correction he appears to believe his service characterization was general, but his DD 214 records it as honorable.  At the time of his discharge it is highly unlikely he would have received Air Force disability benefits since his duty performance continued to be very good.  He is appropriately receiving VA care at this time.  The narrative reason for discharge is accurate, but there is an element of uncertainty raised that provides a degree of latitude for reconsideration by the board to change the narrative reason to Secretarial Authority.  No change in the reenlistment code is warranted.  The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that a change in the narrative reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority may be considered.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD states that 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, grade, rank or rating.  Those members who are separated or retired by reason of a physical disability may be eligible for certain disability compensation.  Eligibility for processing a member through the military disability evaluation system is determined by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) when he or she is found medically disqualified for continued military service.  The decision to conduct an MEB is made by the medical treatment facility providing health care to the member.

Documentation within the veteran’s military record contains a medical examination conducted on 10 December 1986 for the purpose of his ongoing involuntary administrative discharge.  Examination declared him fit for worldwide military service with no disqualifying physical profiles.  A review of his latest performance report verified his ability to perform his military duties as an Air Traffic Controller right until the time of his discharge.  Following their review, they were unable to detect any medical conditions that would have required he be referred before an MEB.

They state that their examination of the AFBCMR case file revealed no errors or irregularities during his administrative discharge, which resulted in him receiving a General Discharge (Under Honorable Conditions) due to misconduct that would justify a change to his military records.  The medical aspects of this case are fully explained by the Medical Consultant; they agree with his advisory.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 31 May 2002, complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  In this respect, we are not persuaded that the reason for the applicant’s separation should be changed to medical reasons.  We note the detailed comments provided from the Chief Medical Consultant and his recommendation that the Board consider changing the reason for separation to Secretarial Authority.  However, in the absence of evidence that the applicant’s misconduct during his period of service was caused by psychiatric problems, we do not recommend favorable action on his request for a change to the reason for separation.  Based on the circumstances surrounding his discharge and after reviewing his medical history, it appears that the applicant was not unfit to perform his duties within the meaning of the law or that the reason for his separation was in accordance with the applicable regulations.  Applicant also requests that his discharge be upgraded; however, the DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, reflects that he received an honorable discharge.  This appears to be in error as his military record indicates that he was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  Nonetheless, based on his overall record and the evidence provided, we find no basis upon which to recommend that his records be corrected to reflect he received an honorable discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 this application in Executive Session on 24 September 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Mar 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 29 Apr 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 28 May 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 31 May 02.