RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-02875
		INDEX NUMBER:  108.00
	XXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  Naomi Long

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His honorable discharge from the Air Force in 1956 be changed to a medical retirement.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant’s counsel asserts on a DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States, that applicant was discharged when he lacked the ability to care for himself.

In support of the applicant’s appeal, counsel provides an unofficial working copy of a medical examination conducted on the applicant by the Veterans Administration Hospital and copies of his active duty medical records.

Counsel’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Air Force for four years on 1 Nov 52.  He was honorably discharged 9 Aug 56 based on his request for early release, dated 1 Aug 56.  The applicant was transferred to the Air Force Reserve until 7 Nov 60 to complete a total of eight years total service, active and reserve combined.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this case are contained in the Air Force evaluations prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air force found at Exhibits C and D.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s request.
The applicant developed a mental illness while on active duty diagnosed as a schizophrenic reaction (schizophrenia in today’s nomenclature).  Many years later he was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder and in retrospect his illness while on active duty was identified as his initial bout with this condition.  Evidence of the record clearly shows the applicant experienced two episodes of acute psychotic behavior, the first March 1955 while in Japan and the second in May 1955 while still and inpatient at Sampson AFB, NY.  Following treatment with electro-convulsive therapy, his symptoms completely resolved and he was returned to full duty by Jan 56.  In Aug 56, the applicant requested early separation and transfer to the Reserves.  His commander, in concurring with the applicant’s request, indicated that the applicant’s character and efficiency were both “excellent,” reflecting continued fitness for duty.  His medical fitness for duty at the time of separation was also documented by his separation physical examination.

Although the applicant did experience mental illness while in active duty, he recovered completely and returned to full duty.  At the time he voluntarily separated he was fit for continued military service and evidence of the record indicates he remained socially and occupationally functional for several years afterwards.  If at the time of his discharge he had undergone a medical evaluation board, he would have been returned to duty and allowed to complete his planned separation.  Since his medical condition was not the reason for discharge from the Air Force, and he was medically fit for duty, he was not eligible for disability discharge from the Air Force.  Because his condition first developed while on active duty, he was eligible for Veterans Affairs benefits in the years following discharge.

The reason the applicant could be fit for duty despite the history of a medical problem and later be granted a service-connected disability by the VA lies in understanding the differences between Title 10, USC and Title 38, USC.  Title 10, USC, Chapter 61 charges the service with maintaining a fit and vital force.  For an individual to be considered unfit for military service, there must be a medical condition so severe that it prevents performance of any work commensurate with rank and experience.  The mere presence of a medical condition does not qualify a member for disability evaluation.  If an individual has been declared unfit, the Service Secretaries are required by law to rate the condition based upon the degree of disability at the time of permanent disposition and not upon the possibility of future events.  No change in military disability ratings can occur after permanent disposition under the rules of the military disability system, even though the condition may become better or worse.  Title 38 takes into consideration the fact that a person can acquire physical conditions that, although not unfitting at the time of separation, may later progress in severity and alter the individual’s lifestyle and future employability.  With this in mind Title 38, which governs the VA system, was written to allow awarding compensation ratings for conditions that were not unfitting for military service at the time of separation.  This is the reason why an individual can be found fit for service and yet sometime thereafter receive a compensation rating from the DVA for service-connected, but not unfitting for military service, conditions.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  A review of the AFBCMR case file confirms that the applicant was never referred through the Air Force disability evaluation system (DES).  The decision to process a member through the military DES is determined by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) when he or she is determined medically disqualified for continued military service.  A medical examination on 3 Aug 56, completed in conjunction with his approved projected discharge, clears him for separation with no disqualifying physical profiles at the time.  Although the member received treatment for a schizophrenic reaction, the final physical examination only refers to a nervous breakdown while assigned to Nagaya Japan.  The commander’s comments during the discharge process refer to his character and efficiency as excellent.  Based on the commander’s statement, we believe it safe to presume the service member was reasonably capable of performing his military duties at the time.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A newly assigned counsel for the applicant’s case responded that it is clear from the enclosed medical records that the physician that administered the applicant’s discharge physical recommended him for a GMS discharge.  Applicant’s counsel also indicates that the applicant’s request for a medical discharge is only being made at this late date due to the involvement of his legal representative.  He also states that the fact that the applicant did not apply for the change in status or recognize his medical disability only highlights the fact that the applicant has suffered mental illness and its effects for his entire life since his entrance into the Air Force.

Counsel opines that if the applicant’s complete medical file is reviewed from an objective viewpoint, there is no other conclusion that the applicant’s medical condition originated in the service and has continued throughout his life.

In support of the applicant’s appeal counsel provides a copy of the applicant’s medical records and a copy of the discharge physical examination.

Counsel’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________

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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  We note that applicant’s counsel appears to have interpreted the term “GMS” indicated on the applicant’s report of physical as his being recommended for a medical discharge.  However, the acronym “GMS” is not an official Air Force term denoting a medical discharge.  In fact the physical that the applicant received where this term was used determined that the applicant was fit for duty and the voluntary discharge that he had applied for could be approved.  In cases like those of the applicant, the Department of Veterans Affairs is the appropriate agency to provide benefits, which the applicant is receiving.  Therefore, in the absence of 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 Docket Number BC-2002-02875 in Executive Session on 15 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Sep 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant,
                dated 21 Jan 03.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPD, dated 27 Feb 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Mar 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 26 Mar 03,
                w/atchs.