RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-02353
		INDEX CODE:  115.00

		COUNSEL:  

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The finding of the Flying Evaluation Board (FEB) be reversed and he be returned to aviation service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The board proceedings were erroneous, an abuse of discretionary authority, contrary to Air Force policies and regulations, and without substantial support in law.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a counsel’s brief.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of captain, having been promoted to that grade on 28 May 01.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 28 May 97.

By Aeronautical Order ---, dated 16 Jul 01, the applicant was permanently disqualified for aviation service effective 19 Jun 00, but retained the privilege of wearing the pilot aviation service badge.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AETC/DO recommended denial noting that the applicant began F-16 training on 27 Jul 99. Prior to his initial F-16 flight, he and his girlfriend broke up.  He became distracted, felt his mind and body were not 100 percent, and believed he was unprepared to fly. Afraid to tell anyone about the problems, and feeling overwhelmed, he ended up getting in his car and drove off.  The applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) on 6 Sep 99 in an attempt to clear his head.  Upon his voluntary return to base, the applicant was directed to the hospital for a physical exam and to Mental Health for counseling.  An FEB was held on 3 Aug 00, at which time the board recommended reinstatement into training.  Subsequent to the board, the applicant confessed ideations of suicide had occurred during the period he was AWOL.  The -- FW/CC directed the board be reconvened to consider the new evidence.

According to AETC/DO, justification to restore the applicant’s qualification for aviation service was unsubstantiated.  The applicant’s qualifications for future aviation service were examined during the FEB in accordance with Air Staff guidance per AFI 11-402, paragraphs 4.5.6., Recommendations to Disqualify.  The best interest of the Air Force is the prime criterion when evaluating each case.  The board unanimously agreed with this action, as did all reviewing authorities and the AETC Commander.  Aviation service is not a right; the Air Force disqualifies a member when he or she is found medically or professionally unqualified to perform aviation service.

A complete copy of the AETC/DO evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

By letter, dated 21 Jan 03, counsel provided a rebuttal response from the applicant.  In his response, the applicant indicated that the most credible argument that he be returned to aviation service ultimately lies in the fact that depression is a medical condition.  His alleged questionable “traits of character and personality characteristics” disqualifying him from aviation service occurred during a three-month period from Sep 99 to Nov 99.  It was during this time that he did go AWOL, had thoughts of suicide while AWOL, and was repeatedly dishonest to his therapist by stating that he did not have thoughts of suicide while he was AWOL.  All of the acts of indiscretion were a direct result of the mental depression he was experiencing at the time.  While it does not excuse his actions, it does provide a medical explanation for them.

One year later after going AWOL, he did experience a recurrence of depression after the first FEB.  This time, he self-reported his feelings of depression to his therapist and self-reported the suicidal thoughts he felt the prior year.  He was completely upfront and honest.  Based on his first episode, he was provided the tools, knowledge, and education to deal with depression, and he effectively used those tools by voluntarily reporting to his therapist.  Based on his therapist’s and psychiatrist’s recommendations, he took antidepressant medication for exactly two months following the recurrence.  This recurrence was not as severe as the episode a year prior because he did not have thoughts of suicide. In fact, some of his doctors alleged that this recurrence was not a second episode, but a carry over of his initial depression that was incompletely treated.  Regardless, since he stopped taking the antidepressant medication in Nov 00, he has not experienced any symptoms of depression.  Prior to his depression, he performed at an outstanding level at the Air Force Academy and at Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT).  He now continues to perform outstandingly in his current career field.  His dream is to return to fly for the Air Force.  He hopes the Board affords him the opportunity to serve his country as a pilot in the Air Force.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Medical Consultant recommended denial.  He noted the applicant's argument that his history of depression is comparable to a severe cold or a broken arm, which resolve completely.  The Medical Consultant indicated these conditions do resolve completely and impart no adverse meaning regarding a flyer’s underlying ability to tolerate the demands of piloting a military aircraft under conditions of military operations and combat.  Adjustment disorder and depression on the other hand raise a bright red flag with regard to the member’s future ability to tolerate the stress of military flight and reliably perform his flying duties in a safe and effective manner.  The appearance of depressed mood may indicate a major disqualifying condition, a weakness of coping that are unsuitable for duty as an aviator, or merely a predictable, passing normal response to an unusual set of stressful circumstances.  A single brief episode as initially was thought to have been the case with the applicant may be considered as an isolated event without adverse significance for qualification for flying duties when a thorough psychological evaluation and a period of observation demonstrates it to be so.  However, the applicant in fact had experienced more chronic and severe symptoms (suicidal ideation, plan and perhaps intent) than originally reported and also experienced recurrent symptoms in the absence of significant external stressors (onset before the FEB at a time he was not engaged in the stressful flight training environment).  His initial diagnosis of adjustment disorder was thus changed to major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate severity.  This is no longer even remotely comparable to a severe cold or a broken bone.  This diagnosis disqualifies the applicant who is at risk for unpredictable recurrence, and who has shown an inability to effectively cope with the stress of commonly experienced personal problems, producing symptoms that are dangerous and magnified many times in the cockpit.  The number of prior episodes of depression predicts the likelihood of a subsequent episode.  Individuals who have had two episodes have a 70 percent chance of having a third.  Those who have had three episodes have a 90 percent chance of having a fourth.  The timing of recurrent episodes is unpredictable, and not always in direct relationship to external stressors.  Initial episodes often occur in the setting of identifiable stressors, however subsequent episodes do not occur at predictable times of stress.  The applicant has demonstrated the development of significant symptoms (suicidal ideation) when exposed to personal problems during a period of routine military pilot training, albeit a stressful time as well.  Further, the applicant has shown himself to be unreliable in reporting symptoms of his illness and has demonstrated poor judgment when experiencing those symptoms.  These facts combined with the fact that an individual who is depressed and even actively having thoughts of suicide may appear perfectly normal to those around him render the applicant unsuitable for duty as a pilot in the Air Force.  With two episodes of depression, the applicant is not suitable for duties involving flying.

According to the Medical Consultant, the issues involved are not merely medical.  The safety of military aviation (and civilian aviation as well) depends on the integrity of its pilots.  The accuracy of medical and psychologic evaluations for determining medical fitness for aviation service is based on the honesty of the pilots.   Those who conceal ailments and symptoms because of concern for their personal career place themselves and others around them at great risk.  This is not tolerated in the Air Force.  The fact that the applicant had lied about his mental condition was sufficient and clear grounds for reconvening the FEB.  The decision by the FEB, and subsequent review and approval by the Commander of Air Education and Training Command, supercedes any Air Force medical authority.  In the Medical Consultant's opinion, the medical issues do not warrant a change in the applicant's records.

A complete copy of the Medical Consultant's evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion from the Medical Consultant and furnished a response indicating, in part, that it did not deny the salient facts of his case, nor refute Dr. W‑‑‑'s opinion.  In fact, the Consultant agreed with Dr. W‑‑‑ that the applicant's failure to report his condition was a symptom of his illness.  The Consultant also apparently agreed that depression, in and of itself, would not be a disqualifying factor.  He then seems to contradict these assertions by stating that his failure to report should lead to his disqualification.  He asks that the Board fully consider Dr. W---'s opinion after he examined and returned him to flight status.

Applicant's complete response is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was timely filed.

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 and the documentation provided in support of his appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs).  No evidence has been presented which shows to our satisfaction that the information used as a basis for the applicant's permanent disqualification from aviation service was erroneous, there was an abuse of discretionary authority, or that he is not at risk for an unpredictable recurrence of the condition that ultimately led to his disqualification.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, we agree with the recommendation of the OPRs 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.  Accordingly, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

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 our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 BC-2002-02353 in Executive Session on 30 Apr 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Jun 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AETC/DO, dated 13 Dec 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Dec 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, applicant, dated 14 Jan 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, counsel, dated 21 Jan 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 4 Mar 03.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 Mar 03.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, applicant, dated 31 Mar 03.