RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2004-02260
		INDEX CODE 104.00
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The reason for his 1997 disenrollment from the US Air Force Academy (USAFA) and discharge from the Air Force be changed from “Unacceptable Conduct” to “Medical” and he be absolved from the recoupment of his education expenses ($90,288.00).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While at the Academy, he suffered from acute Bipolar Affective Disorder (BD), which was not diagnosed by either DOD medical personnel prior to his entering the USAFA or the Academy counselors.  Despite numerous accolades for military excellence, including being on the Commander’s List, he often found it difficult to control his behavior.  As a result, he was involuntarily discharged as a Cadet Second Class (C2C) for repeated instances of unprofessional behavior.  In Mar 03, he began receiving psychiatric treatment after he attempted suicide. In Nov 03, he was diagnosed with BD, a lifelong genetic disorder causing mental illness and debilitating mood swings, for which he must take daily medication.  He regrets his misconduct, but he is certain he would not have engaged in behavior contrary to regulations if he had been diagnosed and treated for his illness before or while he was a cadet.

A psychiatrist’s supporting letter, dated 19 Nov 03, reports the applicant was initially evaluated on 23 Mar 03.  He was referred following an overdose of medications after breaking up with his fiancé.  The letter indicates the applicant reported a history of mood swings since adolescence and treatment for depression when he was in the USAFA.  The psychiatrist suspects the applicant had BD while in the Academy.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The following was compiled from the applicant’s USAFA cadet and medical records, which were obtained by the AFBCMR Staff:

The applicant entered the USAFA on 30 Jun 94.  His scheduled commission date was 27 May 98.

The applicant’s medical records reflect treatment at the USAFA hospital/clinic for minor conditions such as colds, congestion, dermatological issues, sprains, headaches, etc.

Statements and evaluations appear to indicate the applicant was considered to have great aptitude, initiative, and pro-activeness and to be very personable, professional in appearance, hardworking, and proficient in his job knowledge.

The following background information was extracted from the 27 Mar 97 USAFA Military Review Committee (MRC) Action Executive Summary and related attachments:

	     As a 4th classman, the applicant was counseled in Mar 95 about an unprofessional relationship with a female 2nd classman.  In Dec 95, as a 3rd classman, the applicant received 20 demerits, 20 confinements, and a one-month restriction for an unprofessional relationship with a female 4th classman.  In Sep 96, the beginning of his 2nd class year, he developed a third unprofessional relationship, this time with a female 4th classman he was assigned to mentor.  He demonstrated his understanding of the wrongfulness of the relationship by trying to hide behind a bed in the 4th classman’s room when another upperclassman entered.  Despite a period of aptitude probation and extensive counseling by his chain of command, in Feb 97, the applicant created a fourth unprofessional relationship, this time with a female 4th classman from another squadron.  On 26 Feb 97, the cadet squadron commander recommended disenrollment.  The applicant provided statements and character references, including two from a physician’s assistant (PA) who asserted the applicant had “a profound sense of right and wrong.”  The PA added he had a “surrogate parent” relationship with the applicant and believed the applicant had displayed poor judgment in “a narrow area in which young men have a long tradition of poor judgment,” rather than an underlying character flaw. [The PA did not raise any mental or physical issues as mitigating factors at that time--See Exhibit E.]  On 11 Mar 97, the cadet squadron commander directly ordered the applicant to have no contact with the female 4th classman and not to enter her cadet squadron.

The MRC Executive Summary package reports the applicant provided both written and verbal statements in his appeal.  The applicant indicated it was difficult to justify his retention because of past actions of unprofessional relationships, but explained the definition of unprofessional relations was too ambiguous.  He added he learned more each time he was punished for unprofessional relationships and that others’ perception of the relationship must also be taken into account.  He indicated he had difficulty with the concept of propriety, although his commander had noted the applicant only seemed to have this problem with female cadets and not males.  The applicant requested he be retained in the Academy.  However, the MRC recommended disenrollment.

On 2 Apr 97, after consulting counsel, the applicant requested he be allowed to voluntarily resign in lieu of disenrollment.  The Acting Deputy Commander, Cadet Group One, concurred and did not recommend commissioned or enlisted service. The case was forwarded to the USAFA Board.

On 16 May 97, the USAFA Superintendent advised the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) that, after consulting an Air Force judge advocate, the applicant had submitted a tender of resignation on 2 Apr 97 in lieu of an MRC disenrollment due to a “history of unprofessional relationships.”  The Superintendent added the applicant’s inability or unwillingness to conform to this standard made him unqualified to be in the Air Force in any capacity.  He was medically cleared for separation, and discharge with reimbursement to the government was recommended. On that same date, the USAFA Superintendent notified the applicant he was being recommended for honorable discharge with reimbursement to the Air Force for the cost of his Academy education instead of serving active duty time.  The amount of reimbursement was $90,288.00.

According to a 29 Jul 97 letter by the USAFA Inspector General (IG), the topic of unprofessional relationships between cadets was covered in Cadet Wing Instruction 51-201, which stated that upperclassmen may not date or socialize with fourth-class (freshman) cadets.  The applicant was counseled repeatedly for unprofessional relationships with female underclassmen.  Apparently he gave poetry to female cadets; however, it was not necessarily sexual in nature or offensive.

On 11 Aug 97, the SAF approved the USAFA Superintendent’s recommendation that the applicant be disenrolled and directed to reimburse the government for the cost of his education.  

The applicant was honorably discharged for “Unacceptable Conduct” on 11 Aug 97, after 3 years, 1 month and 12 days of active duty.  Service as a cadet is not creditable for any purpose in commissioned officer status.

On 28 Aug 97, the USAFA informed the applicant he owed a debt of $90,288.00 to the government and had the right to dispute it by 17 Sep 97.  A 29 Oct 97 Memo for the Record (MFR) by the Clerk of Adverse Actions reported he received the applicant’s signed acknowledgement but no other response.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The 10th Medical Group commander (10MDG/CC), USAFA, advised he did not have the applicant’s medical record from 1997 because after discharge, the medical record was sent to the military personnel flight (MPF) for disposition.  However, the commander notes the average time from onset of symptoms (usually retrospective) to a formal diagnosis of BD is really quite variable, many times encompassing more than two years.  This delay comes about from the fact that mania feels subjectively good to the patient and many times manic symptoms are actually adaptive in certain environments.  Consequently, treatment is not sought.  This cadet’s mention of seeing “Counselors . . . while at the Academy” may refer to the Academy Counseling Center.  In 1997, this Center was staffed by professors/educators teaching psychology to cadets who would not be in a position to diagnose someone with BD.  The applicant may have had early signs of BD in 1997 as his civilian psychiatrist suspects; however, there are several factors which detract from such a possibility.  The applicant presented a collection of personal commendations from 1997.  The aggregate of these depict a responsible, attentive cadet with excellent military bearing.  These are not typical traits found in a manic patient.  The civilian psychiatrist also failed to cite formal manic symptoms as evidence of BD:  decreased need for sleep, grandiosity, racing thoughts, pressured speech, increased energy, and increased goal-directed behavior.  The symptoms the psychiatrist cites in his supporting letter are very non-specific and often times are more indicative of a personality disorder.  While the medication the applicant is taking is well-known to be efficacious in BD, many other psychiatric problems respond well to this medication.  It is simply not possible to make a firm diagnosis for the applicant as he was in 1997.  Although possible he had some early symptoms of BD, there is currently insufficient evidence to prove that he indeed suffered from BD in 1997.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 27 Aug 04 for review and comment within 30 days.  

The applicant forwarded a letter from the PA who had submitted supporting statements in 1997 during the applicant’s discharge proceedings.  The PA takes exception to the advisory opinion and asserts the ultimate questions here are whether the applicant suffered from BD or other psychiatric illness which made him medically unfit to be at the USAFA, and whether the health care professionals at the USAFA failed to make the diagnosis of mental illness.  The PA indicates he urged the applicant to obtain mental health care, which he rejected believing he had been professionally evaluated at the USAFA.  The PA also contends the applicant has provided a “great deal of evidence of mental disorder, including hospitalization, divorce [sic] and suicide attempt.”  The PA thinks any mental health disorder made the applicant unfit for military service and he should therefore be excused from his debt.  

A complete copy of the PA’s response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded he should be disenrolled from the USAFA for medical reasons and absolved from his educational indebtedness.  During his disenrollment process, the applicant admitted retention was difficult to justify because of his past actions of unprofessional relationships, but explained he had difficulty with the concept of propriety.  However, his commander indicated the applicant only seemed to have this problem with female cadets.  Our examination of the applicant’s medical records, which were obtained for our review, do not provide any evidence of his having BD, depression, or any other unfitting medical disorder while enrolled in the Academy.  The applicant was medically cleared for separation, and discharge with reimbursement to the government was recommended.  The PA’s supporting statement was also noted.  However, this same PA did not raise these mental health issues in his 1997 supporting statements, instead indicating in part the applicant’s “judgment was repeatedly faulty, though in a narrow area in which young men have a long tradition of poor judgment.”  The PA further recommended the applicant be retained in the USAFA.  Finally, the initial diagnosis of BD was not made until 2003, six years after the applicant was disenrolled and separated.  We therefore find the 10MDG/CC’s assessment reasonable based on the available evidence and on the applicant not having established his inappropriate behavior was beyond his control.  The applicant has not demonstrated to our satisfaction his disenrollment from the USAFA was unfounded and the resultant debt unjust.  In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we conclude the applicant has not sustained his burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice and find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

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 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 18 November 2004 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-02260 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Jul 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, 10 MDG/CC, dated 23 Aug 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Aug 04.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Physician’s Assistant, dated 27 Sep 04.