RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01691 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His disability discharge, with severance pay (DWSP), be changed to a retirement. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His diagnosis of “Bipolar disorder” shortened his career and he was well on his way to a 20 year career. He had completed over 12 years of service at the time of his discharge. In Nov 07, his Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) medical provider took him off all psychotropic medications and told him he no longer needed to be seen by their clinic. He then noticed that the medical documentation reflected that he had been misdiagnosed by the military because of an abrupt withdrawal from “Paxil high dose.” In support of his appeal, the applicant submits copies of his DVA documents, progress notes, two DD Forms 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued in conjunction with his 25 Apr 85 separation to accept a commission, and his 24 Jan 00 DWSP. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Based on the available record, on 6 Dec 99, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB), diagnosed the applicant with Bipolar Disorder, Mild Social and Industrial adaptability impairment; History of GERD and history of hypertension, and alcohol abuse and narcissistic traits. They recommended the applicant be discharged with a compensable disability rating of 10 percent. On 8 Dec 99, the applicant concurred with the IPEB’s recommendation. On 24 Jan 00, the applicant was honorably discharged with a compensable disability rating of 10 percent, with severance pay. He was credited with 12 years, 4 months and 14 days of active duty service. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, stating, in part, that based on the documentation on file in the master personnel record, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. DPSOR concurs with DPSIPV's calculation of the applicant's creditable service time reflecting that he was ineligible for retirement at the time of his discharge. The law that governs retirement of an enlisted member is Title 10 USC, Section 8914, Twenty to Thirty Years: Enlisted Members: Under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Air Force, an enlisted member of the Air Force who has at least 20, but less than 30, years of service computed under section 8925 of this title may, upon his request, be retired. According to the calculations provided by HQ AFPC/DPSIPV, the member only has 12 years, 4 months and 14 days of Total Active Federal Military Service. The complete DPSOR evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 26 Jul 12 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). ________________________________________________________________ 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. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. While we note the applicant’s contentions that had he not been misdiagnosed, he would have more than likely completed enough years of service to afford him a military length of service retirement at 20 years. In addressing the applicant’s request for a length of service retirement, in lieu of the medical discharge he received, the DVA records reflect their evaluation was rendered some seven years after his separation. In this respect, the applicant is advised that diagnoses and opinions resulting from a given set of psychiatric symptoms and stressors, as reported by a patient at a given point in time, may change over time. Consequently, different mental health providers may reach different diagnostic conclusions, even when given the same set of clinical symptoms from the same patient, during the approximate same period of time. Absent adequate DVA documentation that explains the allegation of diagnostic error, IAW 38 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), Sections 4.7 and 4.125, the mere statement of an opinion of a service diagnostic error is insufficient to invalidate the accuracy or appropriateness of the conclusions reached by equally competent mental health authorities most familiar with the applicant’s pattern of behavior at the time of his discharge. In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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 issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2012-01691 in Executive Session on 29 November 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Mar 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 11 Jul 12, w/atch. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Jul 12. Panel Chair