RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01816
		INDEX CODE:  110.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His administrative separation be changed to a medical discharge and all lost benefits be restored.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The administrative separation has caused him irrefutable harm, mentally, physically, financially and socially.  He feels that it was an inhumane careless oversight and lack of concern for the medical department to carelessly and systematically execute his discharge as they did.

In support of his appeal, applicant provided a personal statement and excerpts from his VA benefits package.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 29 March 1965, in the grade of airman basic (AB/E-1).  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman third class (A3C/E2) with an effective date and date of rank of 20 May 65.

On 28 Jul 65, the squadron commander initiated administrative discharge action against the applicant.  The reason for the proposed action was that the applicant was evaluated at the Neuropsychiatric Clinic, Base Hospital, --- AFB --, and diagnosed with a personality disorder which necessitated that he be reprofiled from “1” to “4” under Stability.  He was recommended for administrative separation.  The commander recommended that the applicant be given an honorable discharge.  On that same date, applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification.  On 4 Aug 65, after consulting with counsel, applicant declined to submit statements in his own behalf.  On 11 Aug 65, the discharge authority approved the administrative discharge with service characterized as honorable.

On 19 Aug 65, applicant was discharged under the provision of AFR 39-16 and furnished a DD Form 256AF, Honorable Discharge Certificate.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant states that the applicant was administratively separated on 16 August 1965, after 4 months and 21 days on active duty and after being identified with a personality disorder.  He indicated that the applicant had completed basic training and while awaiting the start of technical training was noted to have difficulties with duty performance and meeting standards of personal appearance (uniform) and neatness of his barracks area.  He had been experiencing frequent headaches beginning shortly after entering the service that were felt to be of a musculoskeletal, psycho physiological reaction to his situation in the military manifested by tension headaches.  Upon evaluation by the Neuropsychiatric Service on 14, 15, and 20 Jul 65, he was documented with symptoms of depression related to situational stressors of difficulty adjusting to military service and separation from his family.  His final diagnosis was Emotionally Unstable Personality, passive dependent type (DSM I nomenclature) and administrative discharge for an unsuiting condition was recommended.  Applicant denied a history of headaches or depression on his enlistment exam.  His final diagnoses were personality disorder (in the accepted diagnostic nomenclature of that time) that underpinned his situational depressive symptoms.  In today’s nomenclature, his situational depression would be diagnosed as an Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood with an underlying personality disorder or traits of a personality disorder.  There is no clear evidence to support the applicant’s contention that his diagnoses at that time were in error and that he should have been discharged based on his headaches or a depression diagnosis through the disability evaluation system.  Adjustment and personality disorders are lifelong patterns of maladaptive behavior based on an individual’s personality structure (thus not a disease) which are not medically disqualifying or unfitting but may render the individual unsuitable for further military service and may be cause for administrative action by the individual’s unit commander.  Action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.  It is his opinion that no change in the records is warranted.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPD reviewed this application and commented on the applicant’s applicability through the Disability Evaluation System (DES) under the provisions of AFM 35-4.  The purpose of the DES 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.  The decision to process a member through the military DES is determined by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) when he or she is determined disqualified for continued military service.  The decision to conduct an MEB is made by the medical treatment facility providing the health care to the member.

In the applicant’s case, his involuntary administrative discharge package in the records includes a Neuro-Psychiatric evaluation that revealed he had a Personality Disorder which precluded him from adapting to his new military surroundings.  The medical assessment goes on to state his mental condition showed no physical or mental defects warranting separation under the provisions of AFM 35-4.  Their examination revealed no acts of discrimination or injustice during the administrative discharge process nor were there any physical disabilities documented that were serious enough that would have warranted the initiation of an MEB.  

Department of Defense policy states that certain conditions such as Personality and Adjustment Disorders do not constitute a physical disability under the provisions of military disability laws and policy and are not ratable or compensable under Title 10, United States Code (USC).  Veterans who incur service-connected medical conditions while on active duty are authorized compensation and treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) under the provisions of Title 38, USC.

They further stated that the applicant’s case file revealed no errors or irregularities during his involuntary administrative discharge process that would justify a change to his military records.  They further agreed with the AFBCMR Medical Consultant that no change in the record is warranted in the narrative reason for separation and the application should be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 4 Oct 02 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

___________________________________________________________________

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.  The applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions were duly noted.  However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions or the documentation presented sufficiently persuasive to warrant a change in his records.  After reviewing the evidence of record, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

___________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-01816 in Executive Session on 4 February 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 May 02, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 19 Aug 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 25 Sep 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Oct 02.

                                   Panel Chair