RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02704
				INDEX CODE:  110.00
				COUNSEL:  NONE

				HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  6 MAR 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation be changed or deleted.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He disputes the military’s contention that his disability was preexisting.  He was never treated nor diagnosed for the condition prior to entering the military.  He is applying for Veterans Affairs benefits and the Air Force’s characterization of a preexisting condition will jeopardize his chances to receive benefits.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on 26 May 1981 as an airman basic (AB) for a period of four years serving as a apprentice law enforcement specialist.

Prior to enlisting, on 26 January 1981, the applicant initialed Air Force (AF) Form 2030, USAF Drug Abuse Certificate, acknowledging he never “illegally used or possessed dangerous drugs, narcotics, LSD or any hallucinogens and that he never has been arrested by police for possession or use of other substances.”

On 3 February 1981, the applicant checked “yes” on Standard Form (SF) 93, Report of Medical History, to the following questions, “Depression or excessive worry, Nervous trouble of any sort”  The 
examining physician noted “Depression, reactive, no suicidal attempt, Nervous trouble - not serious enough to seek medical attention.”

On 6 January 1982, based on statements the applicant made to a coworker/supervisor regarding his prior drug use an investigation was initiated into his use and possession of controlled substances.

On 6 January 1982, the applicant was hospitalized via a referral from the Mental Health Clinic with a chief complaint of “I think I am really addicted to drugs, and want to get this worked out.”

The applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation and was diagnosed as having bipolar affective disorder, manic, chronic with episodes of acute exacerbations, moderate, in remission and mixed substance abuse (reportedly including marijuana, hashish, cocaine, amphetamines, downers, LSD and others.)  

On 29 January 1982, the applicant, following his hospitalization, completed a SF 93 and wrote “My present health has not been better since Dec 80.  My medication is lithium bicarbonate and Navane.  They both calm me down and slow my thought from racing.”

The applicant underwent a medical evaluation board (MEB) on 23 February 1982.  The MEB diagnosed the applicant as bipolar affective disorder, manic, chronic with episodes of acute exacerbations, moderate, in remission; manifested by increased activity, loquaciousness, flight of ideas, irritability, and loss of concentrating ability.  Stress:  None.  Predisposition:  Severe, family history of bipolar affective disorder in his natural mother.  Degree of Impairment:  Marked for military duty, and slight for social and vocational rehabilitation.  The MEB recommended the applicant to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).

On 4 June 1982, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) diagnosed the applicant with bipolar affective disorder, manic, chronic with slight impairment of social and industrial adaptability; Existed prior to service (EPTS) without service aggravation.  They recommended the applicant be discharged under other than Chapter 61, 10 United States Code (USC).

On 24 March 1982, the applicant’s commander initiated administrative discharge action for misconduct, fraudulent entry due to the applicant’s failure to reveal preservice drug use with a recommendation that the applicant be discharged with an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.

In the recommendation for discharge, the commander cited the following derogatory information:

	The applicant received Letters of Counseling (LOC) on 23 November 1981, 27 November 1981, 6 December 1981, 31 December 1981 and 5 January 1982.  The applicant also received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) on 6 January 1982.

The commander advised applicant of his right to consult legal counsel; present his case to an administrative discharge board; be represented by legal counsel at a board hearing; submit statements in his own behalf in addition to, or in lieu of, the board hearing; or waive the above rights after consulting with counsel.

After consulting with counsel, applicant offered a conditional waiver to an administrative discharge board contingent on his receiving a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

On 9 April 1982, a legal review was conducted in which the staff judge advocate recommended the applicant’s waiver be accepted and he be separated from the Air Force with a general discharge.

On 30 April 1982, the execution of the applicant’s approved discharge was deferred pending dual action processing.

On 7 July 1982, the applicant’s case was processed by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) as a dual action case with a determination that the applicant be discharged with a disability that EPTS.

On 9 August 1982, the applicant was discharged in the grade of airman with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge due to a disability that existed prior to service.  He served 1 year, 2 months and 14 days of active duty service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, states bipolar disorder is an illness characterized by periods of sustained disruption of mood, associated with distortions of perception, somatic functioning, and impairment in social functioning.  There is a hereditary predisposition for the condition and the age of onset is typically between 15 and 30 years of age.  The mood disorder includes periods of mania, a state of elevated, expansive, or irritable mood lasting at least a week, and periods of depressed mood or even episodes of major depression and is classified according to the predominant mood pattern.  Manic episodes are characterized by inflated self esteem, decreased need for sleep, excessive talkativeness, racing of thoughts, increased goal directed activity, easy distractibility, and excessive pursuit of pleasurable activities without the normal regard for the consequences of excess (spending money, sexual encounters, etc.)  
The most common behavioral symptoms associated with manic episodes include pressured speech, hyperverbosity, physical hyperactivity, agitation, decreased need for sleep, hypersexuality and extravagance.  Impaired slight insight is a frequent component of the manic episode.  Bipolar disorder is a chronic illness that often evolves over a prolonged period of time (months, years) before diagnosis, is marked by a course of relapses and remissions, is frequently associated with substance abuse, with a high rate of suicide attempt (25-50%) and successful suicide (15%).  Prior to treatment with mood stabilizing medications, individuals with this disorder experience 4 episodes over 10 years, however treatment with medication significantly reduces the frequency and severity of episodes.  The majority of individuals with bipolar disorder return to a fully functional level between episodes.  However, some display inter-episode mood lability and interpersonal or occupational difficulties and some have incomplete inter-episode recovery.

The Medical Consultant further states the applicant alleges he was never diagnosed or treated for bipolar disorder prior to entering military service.  Although he was never formally diagnosed and treated for bipolar disorder before entering military service, the preponderance of the evidence of record clearly indicates the applicant was manifesting symptoms of the evolving condition prior to entering active duty service.  The in-service worsening of the condition is the expected natural course of the condition and treatment placed him in remission such that he reported he had not felt better since before December 1980, five months before he entered the Air Force.

Furthermore, a determination of service connectedness for purposes of the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) compensation is made by the DVA not the Department of Defense (DoD).  The Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) may correct errors in military records and has no jurisdiction over decisions and documentation made by the DVA and does not have the authority to render a determination of service connectedness for the purposes of DVA disability determinations under Title 38.  The fact that the service has made a determination that a condition exited prior to service does not automatically mean the DVA will deny benefits since the DVA makes its own assessment of the medical evidence regarding service connection, when the condition was incurred and whether there was a permanent service aggravation.  Therefore, based on the information above the Medical Consultant recommends the requested relief be denied.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 13 April 2005, for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.  

_________________________________________________________________

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 of timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  The applicant contends the narrative reason for his discharge is preventing him from receiving disability benefits from the DVA.  After careful consideration of the circumstances of this case and the evidence provided by the applicant, we are not persuaded the narrative reason for separation the applicant received was in error or unjust.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In this respect, it appears the applicant’s case was properly processed through the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council as a dual action case where a determination was made that he be discharged for a disability which EPTS, rather than discharging him for misconduct.  The applicant contends he was never treated or diagnosed as having this medical condition.  As noted by the Medical Consultant although the applicant was not formally diagnosed and treated for bipolar disease prior to entering active duty, evidence of record indicates he was manifesting symptoms of the evolving condition prior to entering the Air Force.  By his own admission, he stated he experienced symptoms of the medical condition and used illegal drugs before entering active duty.  The applicant provides no persuasive evidence the decision made regarding the reason for his discharge is inaccurate or unjust.  With respect to his contention regarding DVA disability entitlements, it should be noted the DVA not DOD, determines the service connection of a medical condition for the purposes of receiving DVA disability compensation.  The fact the Air Force made a determination that the applicant’s condition existed prior to service does not automatically mean the DVA will deny him benefits.  The DVA makes its own assessment of the medical evidence regarding service connection, when the condition was incurred and whether there was permanent service aggravation.  Therefore, in view of the above 
and 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-02704 in Executive Session on 19 May 2005 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 27 Aug 04.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated
				13 Apr 05.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Apr 05.