RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03205
		INDEX NUMBER:  108.00
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The reason for his separation from the Air Force be changed to Bipolar Disorder vice Personality Disorder with all other subsequent changes.

He be medically retired from the Air Force for Bipolar Disorder.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The information that was available at the time of his separation from service was ambiguous and incomplete.  It was later determined that the emotional disturbances he experienced were due to Bipolar Disorder.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 27 Dec 00.  On 17 Apr 02, the applicant’s squadron commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force based on a condition that interferes with military service, specifically a mental disorder.  The reason for the commander’s action was the applicant’s diagnosis with an adjustment disorder.  His disorders also hampered the mission effectiveness of his unit and made him unsuited to continue the sensitive nature of his duties.  The applicant acknowledged receipt on 17 Apr 02 and submitted a written response.  The applicant indicated that the discharge action gave an inaccurate impression of his duty performance and failed to mention his many accomplishments during his military career.  The applicant indicated that the discharge action should reflect that the actions leading to his discharge were not due to any fault of his.  On 19 Apr 02, the applicant’s squadron commander recommended to the Wing commander that the applicant be discharged, with an honorable discharge, based on a condition that interferes with military service.  On 23 Apr 02, the Wing Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge action against the applicant legally sufficient, contingent upon a finding that he was medically qualified for worldwide duty.  The applicant was medically cleared and discharged on 25 Apr 02 with an honorable discharge.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates “Personality Disorder” as the narrative reason for discharge, a separation code of “JFX,” and a Reenlistment Eligibility Code of “2C,” Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  The applicant was separated for unsuitability due to Adjustment Disorder and Personality Disorder.  While on active duty, his symptoms also suggested a diagnosis of cyclothymia.  The applicant was diagnosed with cyclothymia, inferred from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Rating Decision provided by the applicant (“bipolar disorder” (claimed as cyclothymia)) shortly following discharge.  Facts of the record show that the applicant was exhibiting symptoms consistent with cyclothymia and that his mental health providers suspected he might have had this disorder but that the symptoms he was manifesting were not of sufficient severity to have met diagnostic criteria set forth in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV).  The medical record clearly documents an underlying personality disorder for military service.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  Records indicate that the applicant was never referred through the Air Force military disability evaluation system (DES).  His medical records show that mental health examinations diagnosed him with an Adjustment Disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct, in addition to a Personality Disorder, which is not otherwise specified.  Comments also indicate the onsets of these personality traits as predating his military service.  The medical appraisal goes on to state his mental condition showed no physical or mental defects warranting separation under the provisions of AFI 36-3212.

Department of Defense policy states that certain conditions such as Personality and Adjustment Disorders do not constitute a physical disability under the provisions of federal disability laws and policy, and are not ratable or compensable under Title 10, United States Code (USC).  In order to qualify for a disability discharge/retirement under AFI 36-3212, the applicant would have had to attain a serious or life threatening medical condition prior to his release from active duty.  The applicant’s file does not include any such documentation.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force evaluations, the applicant discusses the events leading to his discharge and post-separation events that he believes are relevant to his case.  He states that his appointment at the Mental Health Clinic was due to the medication he had been prescribed by his primary care manager.  He states that an accurate diagnosis could not have been made until after his discharge.  He also indicates that the premature discharge action was thought necessary due to the nature of his career field.

The applicant provides a summary of the events that led to him being referred to the mental health clinic.  He indicates that misrepresentation from the social worker he saw at the clinic, the unavailability of a prohibited substances list, and unacceptable timelines for accurate evaluation of his psychological state and medication effects affected the basis of the interview he underwent on 24 Jan 02 at the mental health clinic, resulting in preconceptions of his current mental state.  All these events brought unnecessary attention that led to the outpatient interviews, inpatient hospitalizations, and to his subsequent discharge.

The applicant discusses diagnostic criteria related to cyclothymia and personality disorders.  The applicant reinforces his view that the events that led to his discharge precluded an accurate diagnosis in accordance with diagnostic standards.  The need for a quick decision and separation was required because of the nature of his work, leading to a presumptive diagnosis that was not the cause of his problems.  The true cause was cyclothymia and a correction of records is warranted.

The applicant’s complete response 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 timely filed.

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 opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  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-2002-03205 in Executive Session on 2 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Oct 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant,
                dated 16 Dec 02.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPD, dated 28 Feb 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Mar 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, undated.