RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00871
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be changed to a disability discharge/retirement.

His narrative reason for separation, separation code and reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed on his DD Form 214.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was misdiagnosed and discharged under false pretense.  A Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) diagnosis was made that determined he had a bipolar disorder and migraine headaches, which were caused by a 1983 head injury incurred in the line of duty, and were service connected.  He agrees he should have been released from active duty under the accurate diagnosis and given the RE code of 4K, which defined means “Temporarily medically disqualified for continued service; applicable physical standards are not met.”

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 4 August 1980.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5), with an effective date and date of rank of 1 April 1985.  He reenlisted on 23 August 1985 for a period of six years.

On 26 January 1990, the applicant received notification that he was being recommended for discharge due to a character and behavior disorder.  Specifically, a 1 December 1989 commander-directed mental health evaluation diagnosed the applicant as having an Occupational Problem, Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder and migraine headaches.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification.  On 6 February 1990, after being interviewed and counseled by the Area Defense counsel concerning his rights, the applicant submitted a waiver of his right to a discharge board conditioned on his receipt of an honorable discharge.  On 28 February 1990, the discharge authority approved the recommended separation and directed that the applicant be issued an honorable discharge.

On 26 March 1990, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (conditions that interfere with military service-not disability-character and behavior disorder), with a separation code of “HFX”.  He had completed a total of 9 years, 7 months and 23 days on active duty and was serving in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) at the time of discharge.  He received an RE Code of 2C, which defined means "Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service."

The records of the Department of Veterans Affairs reflect the applicant’s combined disability rating as 80 percent.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The BCMR Medical Consultant summarized the information contained in the applicant’s personnel and medical records.  He states that, although current psychiatric opinions conclude that in retrospect the applicant was manifesting symptoms of Bipolar Disorder while on active duty, no diagnostic errors were made by the numerous competent mental health professionals who evaluated the applicant and no error or injustice occurred.  Action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.  He is of the opinion that no change in the applicant’s record is warranted.  Details of his evaluation are at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPD recommends the application be denied.  DPPD states that the preponderance of evidence appears to justify the discharge action taken with no individual biases or injustices noted.  The medical aspects of the case are provided by the BCMR Medical Consultant; DPPD concurs with his comments and recommendation that no change in the record is warranted.  The HQ AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE states that the applicant’s RE code of “2C” is correct.  No evidence was presented to support changing the RE code.  The HQ AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 23 January 2004 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (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.  The applicant was administratively discharged, because of unsuitability due to a mental disorder not falling under the purview of the disability system.  It should be noted that an individual’s condition at the time of separation or final disposition governs whether or not the member is referred for disability processing.  In order to be referred for disability processing, the member’s fitness for worldwide duty must be seen as questionable.  Decisions of this nature are based on accepted medical principles.  While the applicant’s behavior was cause for referral for mental health evaluations, it was the determination of health care providers that his condition at that time was not unfitting, but rather, was cause for the initiation of administrative separation action.  Upon notification of the discharge action, the applicant waived his right to an administrative discharge board hearing contingent on receipt of an honorable discharge.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case and have seen no persuasive evidence that would lead us to believe he was not treated fairly and properly by the Air Force and all procedures were followed.  We, therefore, agree with the opinion and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and conclude that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or injustice.  In view of the above and absent 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 this application in Executive Session on 25 March 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00871.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Feb 03, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 3 Sep 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 22 Dec 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 16 Jan 04.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Jan 04.

                                   Panel Chair