RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01570
							INDEX CODE 100.06  110.02
	 						COUNSEL:  None

							HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2Q be changed so he can reenlist.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to stressful situations, he requested discharge after less than two years of service. He had asked not to be placed in medical situations because of a blood phobia. He was nevertheless placed in Health Services Management, where he overcame his phobia. He was frustrated by his lack of professional opportunities, a broken engagement, and caring for his ill mother. He believes several personal and cultural reasons led to his misdiagnosis and he was misinformed about the consequences of this misdiagnosis. The situation was temporary, he receives no counseling or medication, has earned a college degree, and become a citizen. He wants to reenlist.

In support of the appeal, the applicant submits character references and a Hillsborough County, FL sheriff’s office certification that no criminal record could be found. He also presents a statement from a physician who advises the applicant has seen him for small complaints and “appears mentally and physical stable.”

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17 Dec 97 and was assigned to the 959th MSGS at Wilford Hall Medical Center (WHMC), Lackland AFB, as an emergency room administration technician. On his enlistment medical history, he indicated he had no medical problems.

In Mar 98, the applicant was required to attend formal alcohol abuse educational class because he was drunk on station while a student in technical school. No diagnosis of alcohol dependence or abuse was made. He was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol on 23 Aug 98. He was referred to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment (ADAPT) Program. On 16 Sep 98, he self-referred to the Mental Health Clinic for feeling sad, angry, isolated, and irritable for being in a job he did not want. He expressed concern that what he said would affect his career goals. He was treated at the WHMC partial hospitalization program for an adjustment disorder with mixed features, alcohol abuse, and personality disorder. 

On 27 Oct 98, the applicant’s commander imposed an Article 15 for the DUI incident on 23 Aug 98. The applicant made an oral and written presentation. He was punished with 21 days of additional duty and reduction from airman first class (A1C) to airman, suspended until 27 Apr 99. The applicant did not appeal and the Article 15 was found legally sufficient and filed in his Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

On 5 Nov 98, the applicant was taken to WHMC emergency facility, reporting stressors including the DUI, job dissatisfaction, separation from his fiancée and thoughts of hurting himself. He was given a preliminary diagnosis of cyclothymia (a mood swing disorder similar to but milder than bipolar). He continued to receive outpatient mental health and alcohol rehabilitation treatment. Although he reported abstinence for four months, lab work revealed abnormally elevated liver enzymes determined to be consistent with ongoing alcohol abuse.

On 22 Jan 99 he was referred to WHMC for a medical evaluation for symptoms consistent with a bipolar-like illness and personality disorder. The 27 Jan 99 Narrative Summary noted the applicant began drinking again and blacked out before graduating from the ADAPT Program. The applicant described high and low mood swings and indicated he had downloaded information on bipolar illness. During the interview, the applicant consistently contradicted himself in reference to onset, frequency, duration and intensity of these bipolar-like symptoms. The psychiatrist also reported the applicant endorsed signs/symptoms consistent with borderline and narcissistic personality traits. Diagnoses were bipolar disorder, not otherwise specified (NOS), alcohol abuse, and personality disorder, NOS. Discharge and continued mood stabilizer medication were recommended.

On 18 Feb 99, the commander advised that the applicant’s medical condition did not impact his ability to accomplish his daily duties and the majority of his conflicts were of a personal nature outside the job area. On that same date, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened. Diagnosis was bipolar disorder, NOS, and alcohol abuse, which were found to have existed prior to service (EPTS), and personality disorder, NOS. His case was referred to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB).

The IPEB convened on 26 Feb 99, found the applicant’s medical conditions EPTS, were incompatible with military service, and were not aggravated by the service. The bipolar disorder was found unfitting but not compensable; the alcohol abuse and personality disorder were neither unfitting nor compensable. The applicant disagreed and requested a Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB). 

On 25 Mar 99, the disability representative forwarded the applicant’s request for a “culturally sensitive psychiatric evaluation,” contending the psychiatric testing he received was culturally biased against him and not indicative of his true condition. A 26 Mar 99 psychiatric evaluation advised that no psychological testing, per se, was performed and the findings (bipolar and personality disorders, alcohol abuse) were based on clinical signs, symptoms and judgment of the interviewing physician, and that they did EPTS. On 26 Mar 99, the applicant’s request for a second evaluation was disapproved.

The FPEB convened on 29 Mar 99 and agreed with the findings and recommendations of the IPEB. The 10% compensable percentage was not applicable because the medical conditions EPTS. The applicant provided a rebuttal letter, contending he had only two, not multiple, alcohol-related incidents and questioning the “long history” of bipolar-like symptoms. 

On 5 May 99, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) considered the applicant’s rebuttal letter and concluded his condition EPTS without service aggravation. SAFPC also believed there were grounds for pursuing a fraudulent enlistment because the applicant had not disclosed more information on his medical history form; however, they elected not to return the case for further legal review and concurred with the I/FPEB findings. 

On 29 Jun 99, the applicant was honorably discharged in the grade of A1C with a narrative reason of disability after 1 year, 6 months, and 13 days of active service. He was issued an RE code of 2Q (Personnel medically retired or discharged). The applicant received approximately $4,471.20 in disability severance pay. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant provides a detailed medical history and advises the bipolar disorder diagnosis was noted not to be a firm one; however, it is a chronic disorder often characterized by periods of remission with unpredictable relapses. Regardless, the applicant’s personality disorder and failure in the alcohol treatment program alone rendered him unsuitable for continued military service and reenlistment. A narrative reason for discharge of “disability” is preferred by most over “personality disorder.” The Consultant contends there was an error in executing the order of SAFPC and the applicant was disability discharged with 10% severance pay, which he should not have received. Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPRSP believes the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discharge authority’s discretion. The applicant has not substantiated any errors or injustices and his appeal should be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE advises that the RE code is correct.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E.
______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF EVALUATION: 

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 9 Jan 04 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

______________________________________________________________

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 waive the failure to timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we are not persuaded that his RE code should be changed. The Medical Consultant notes the bipolar disorder diagnosis was not a firm one but it is a chronic disorder often characterized by periods of remission with unpredictable relapses. The Consultant further indicates the applicant’s symptoms could also be due to his personality disorder or cyclothymia. Regardless, his personality disorder and failure in the alcohol treatment program alone rendered him unsuitable for reenlistment and continued military service. Based on the Consultant’s recommendation and the evidence of record, we are not convinced it would be in the best interests of the Air Force or the applicant to allow him to reenlist.  Therefore, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on 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 24 February 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-01570 was considered:

	Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Apr 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 23 Sep 03.
	Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 30 Oct 03.
	Exhibit E. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 12 Dec 03.
	Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jan 04.

								Panel Chair