RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-01892

		INDEX CODE:  110:00
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect he received a medical discharge.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has a 100 percent service connected disability and his records should reflect he received a medical discharge.  His medical condition was misdiagnosed and was recently correctly diagnosed.

Applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 14 Jun 65, the applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force.  

He was notified on 10 Jan 67 that he was being promoted to airman third class (A3C).  In January 1967, he was indicted for attempted armed robbery by civil authorities.  The case was dismissed as a result of a mistrial.  Due to the indictment for attempted armed robbery his promotion was revoked.  He appealed the promotion revocation and the appeal was approved.  He was promoted to A3C with an effective date of 10 Jan 67.

The applicant's medical records reflect he received medical care for recurring headaches and bilateral foot pain.  His records also note he refused a spinal tap for evaluation of the headaches.  He underwent two mental health evaluations one of which reflected he was still experiencing headaches and was somewhat angry that nothing had been done.  The mental health provider discussed the functional dynamics and recommended ways of working out his problems.  The provider also advised him that headaches were not the basis for a medical action and that there was no psychiatric illness. His medical records further reflected that there was no evidence of psychosis, neurosis, or organic brain disease.  His irresponsibility and poor job performance appeared to be related to his immature personality.  Neither his headaches 
or other medical concerns warranted evaluation by a Medical Evaluation Board.

On 27 Jun 67, the applicant’s commander notified him he was recommending him for discharge for frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  The specific reason for the discharge action was he received three Article 15's for wrongfully and unlawfully subscribing a false oath and failure to go.  He received four verbal reprimands for failure to go, financial irresponsibility, and falling asleep on the job.  The notification letter was amended to include financial irresponsibility for failure to pay debts.  His case was presented before a Board of Officers.  The Board recommended discharge for unsuitability with probation and rehabilitation.  He was discharged on 27 Oct 67 with a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation.  He served 2 years, 4 months and 14 days of active service.

The applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on 7 Mar 83 to upgrade his discharge to honorable citing the dismissal of the civilian charges.  The AFDRB considered all the evidence of record and concluded that applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.  The AFDRB further stated his overall record reflected numerous infractions for which there is no mitigating basis to warrant a change in his characterization.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) awarded the applicant a service connection with a 10 percent disability rating for foot pain.  He was denied service connection for his headaches in March 1977 and October 1980.  He was recently awarded a service connection with a 100 percent disability rating for bipolar disorder. 

____________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The Medical Consultant states the applicant committed several minor disciplinary infractions during his military service. He has since been granted service connection for a bipolar disorder.  He has been hospitalized on multiple occasions for manic episodes.  In regards to his post-service diagnosis, it is not uncommon for an initial diagnostic impression to change, following additional follow-up care and observation over a greater period of time. At the same time, it is relatively common for an individual with a personality disorder to concurrently experience another co-morbid mental disorder, such as major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder. In the case under review, the applicant's documented in-service symptoms (somatic and otherwise) did not include 
evidence supportive of this alternative diagnosis, which was diagnosed several years following his separation.  The evidence of record reflects that the issues that resulted in the applicant's discharge were the result of an "immature personality," as there were no signs of a "psychosis, neurosis, or an organic brain disorder." The BCMR Medical Consultant, nonetheless, considered the possibility that the applicant could have experienced a bipolar disorder, instead of a personality disorder during his military service. If the proposed answer is yes, then such a determination would be made on conjecture and not upon the available evidence at the time of the applicant's discharge.  The BCMR Medical Consultant opines that it was more likely than not, the applicant's virgin personality structure, and not an underlying untreated or undiagnosed bipolar disorder, that resulted in his periods of irresponsibility and subsequent discharge. Additionally, even when considering the fact that the applicant was later diagnosed with a bipolar disorder and the possibility that it may have been overlooked during the applicant's military service, does not invalidate a likely coexistence of the "immature personality" at the time of his discharge; the latter condition which is not compensable or ratable under the Military Disability Evaluation System (MDES). Nor, is it uncommon that when a Personality disorder does co-exist with an Axis I mental diagnosis during military service, it is often the Personality disorder and NOT the ratable Axis I disorder that has actually interfered with, or has had the greater negative influence upon, the individual's ability to function in the military environment.  In conclusion, the Medical Consultant acknowledged that the applicant appears to have experienced chronic headaches of approximate one-year duration during his military service. However, there is no indication of record that the condition independently interfered with the performance of his military duties, as would be documented on a profile restriction document or recurring treatment of intractable pain, to the extent that it could have or should have justified a referral through the MDES; or processing his case as a "dual-action" review by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council, or a similar body, at the time of the applicant's discharge.

AFBCMR Medical Consultant's complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 12 Sep 08 for review and comment within 30 days.  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 to timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice.  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 failed to sustain his burden of proof of the existence of either an error or an injustice.  We find no evidence of a medical condition of such a severity that prevented him from performing the duties of his rank and experience or that would have warranted evaluation under the disability evaluation system.  Therefore, it appears the processing of the discharge and the characterization of his service were appropriate and accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy.  Accordingly, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.	The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2008-01892 in Executive Session on 18 Nov 08 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				XXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
				XXXXXXXXXX, Member
				XXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-01892 was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 7 May 08.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 
				5 Sep 08.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Sep 08.

					XXXXXXXXXX
					Panel Chair