RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-02483
		INDEX CODE:  108.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His medical separation be changed to a medical retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His medical condition was misdiagnosed.  He was rated for the wrong diagnosis.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided documentation from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 27 Aug 97 for a period of four years, in the grade of airman basic.  Prior to the matter under review, the applicant was promoted to the grade of airman first class.  He received two Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) in which he received overall ratings of 5, 3 (1-5 (Highest)), respectively.

A psychiatric report detailing the treatment the applicant had received from the Mental Health Flight of the ---th Medical Group indicated that the applicant originally presented on 25 Jan 00 complaining of several months of feeling dizzy, shaky, having headaches and chest pains due to stress and anxiety.  He expressed concern about an upcoming 90-day deployment in Mar 00.  He reported feeling increasingly unhappy for several months and that he had trouble sleeping, awakening several times per night.  He complained of feeling tense, irritable, and tired all day.  He had been avoiding activities and people.  He reported recurrent suicide ideations, (SI) with strong thoughts of crashing his car at times.  He attributed his distress to maltreatment by the Air Force.  He reported whenever away, such as on leave, he felt well.  He was diagnosed with depression, not otherwise specified (NOS) (manifested by poor sleep, anxiety, worry, pessimism, guilt, loss of appetite, and suicidal ideation.  All symptoms resolved with leave, and reemerged when patient anticipated return to active duty); and a personality disorder NOS, provisional (dependent and histrionic traits).  The applicant was referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).

On 16 May 00, an MEB convened and established a diagnosis of depression NOS.  Degree of impairment for civilian social and industrial adaptability was mild  The MEB recommended that the applicant’s case be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board.

On 30 May 00, an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) convened and established diagnoses of major depressive disorder NOS, mild social and industrial adaptability impairment; and, personality disorder, NOS, with dependent and histrionic traits.  The IPEB found that the applicant was unfit because of physical disability, that the disability was incurred while the applicant was entitled to receive basic pay, that the disability was incurred in the line of duty, that the disability was ratable under VA Diagnostic Code 9435 at 10 percent, and that the disability may be permanent.  The IPEB recommended that the applicant be discharged with severance pay.  The applicant agreed with the findings and recommended disposition of the IPEB.

On 31 May 00, the Secretary of the Air Force directed that the applicant be separated from active duty service for physical disability under the provisions of 10 USC 1203, with severance pay.

The applicant was honorably discharged on 27 Jun 00 (Disability - Entitled to Severance Pay).  He was credited with 2 years, 10 months, 1 day of active duty service.

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:

The Medical Consultant recommended denial noting that following his discharge, the applicant sought continued treatment and disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).  He underwent a mental health evaluation by the DVA on 5 Dec 00 and was noted to have symptoms consistent with bipolar disorder.  The report stated he was doing well, happily married and employed as an auto mechanic, though continuing to experience mild symptoms of depressed mood and irritability.  The DVA rated his bipolar disorder at 30 percent.

According to the Medical Consultant, the applicant developed a depressive disorder NOS that was later rediagnosed as bipolar disorder.  The change does not represent any evidence of diagnostic error as bipolar disorder may often first present with depression before other manifestations suggestive of bipolar disorder become apparent.  The applicant’s psychiatric condition was properly rated by the Physical Evaluation Board.  The subsequent diagnostic refinement did not alter the basis of the rating which is the impairment of social and industrial adaptability applied to all psychiatric conditions.

In the Medical Consultant’s view, there was no evidence to support a higher rating at the time of the applicant's discharge.  His case was properly evaluated, appropriately rated, and received full consideration under the provisions of AFI 36-3212.  He indicated that the action and disposition in this case were proper and reflected compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law, and, that no change in the records is warranted.

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

AFPC/DPPD recommended denial indicating that upon reviewing the preponderance of evidence provided in the record, it appears the veteran’s request for an increase in his disability rating is primarily supported from a DVA rating decision.  In their view, it is essential that the applicant understand the difference between the Air Force and DVA disability systems, which operate under separate laws.  Under the Air Force system (Title 10, USC), Physical Evaluation Boards must determine if an individual’s medical condition renders them unfit for duty.  The fact that a person may have a medical condition does not automatically signify the condition is unfitting for continued military service.  To be unfitting, the medical condition must be such that it by itself precludes the individual from fulfilling the purpose for which he or she is employed.  If a PEB renders a finding of unfit, federal law provides appropriate compensation due to the premature termination of the member’s military career.

AFPC/DPPD stated that Air Force disability boards can only rate unfitting medical conditions based on the individual’s medical status at the time of his or her evaluation; in essence, a snapshot of their condition at that time.  The DVA, however, is chartered to provide continual medical care to veterans once they depart active duty.  The DVA may increase or decrease a member’s service-connected disability rating based on the seriousness of the medical condition throughout his or her life span.  During their review of the DVA rating decision, it was noted that the applicant is currently being rated for his bipolar disorder at 30 percent.  However, it also states the assigned rating is not considered permanent and subject to future examinations.

According to AFPC/DPPD, they found no grounds to change the applicant’s records to reflect an increase in his original disability rating along with the award of a disability retirement.  It was determined that the applicant was treated fairly throughout the Air Force Disability Evaluation System (DES), was properly rated under disability guidelines, and that he was afforded the opportunity for further review as provided by federal laws and policy.  In their view, the applicant did not provided sufficient documentation to reflect an injustice occurred during his process through the Air Force DES, which resulted in his receiving a disability discharge under the provisions of military disability laws and policy.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 14 Mar 03 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

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 submitted in support of his appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR).  The evidence of record indicates that an IPEB found the applicant was unfit for continued military service because of major depressive and personality disorders and recommended that he be discharged with 10 percent severance pay.  He agreed with the IPEB and was subsequently discharged.  No evidence has been presented which would lead us to believe that the applicant was improperly diagnosed or inappropriately rated.  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.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2002-02483 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 30 Jul 02, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 30 Jan 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 8 Mar 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Mar 03.