AIR FORCE BOARD FOR  CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-00801 

Applicant  requests that  his  15 April  1991 administrative discharge 
be  changed  to  a  medical  discharge.  Applicant's  submission is  at 
Exhibit A. 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

The appropriate Air Force off ices evaluated applicant s request and 
provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application 
be denied  (Exhibit C ) .   The advisory opinions were forwarded to the 
(Exhibit  D) . 
applicant/counsel 
Counsel's/applicant's responses  to  the  advisory  opinions  are  at 
Exhibit E. 

review  a-nd 

response 

for 

After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available 
evidence  of  record,  we  find  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or 
injustice  to  warrant  corrective  action.  The  facts  and  opinions 
stated in the advisory opinions appear to be  based  on the evidence 
of 
adequately  rebutted  by 
counsel/applicant.  Absent persuasive evidence applicant was denied 
rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, 
or  appropriate  standards  were  not  applied,  we  find  no  basis  to 
disturb the existing record. 

and  have 

not  been 

record 

Accordingly, applicant's request is denied. 

The Board  staff  is directed to  inform applicant of  this decision. 
Applicant  should also be  informed that  this decision is final and 
will  only  be  reconsidered  upon  the  presentation  of  new  relevant 
evidence  which  was  not  reasonably  available  at  the  time  the 
application was filed. 

Members of the Board Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, and 
Mr. David W.  Mulgrew considered this application on 5 February 1998 
in accordance with  the provisions of Air Force  Instruction 36-2603 
and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552. 

VAUGq E. SCHLUNf 
Panel Chair 

Exhibits : 
A.  Applicant's DD Form 149 
B.  Available Master Personnel Records 
C.  Advisory Opinions 
D. 
E.  Counsel's/Applicant's Responses 

SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions 

. 

'L 

-

'

l

 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS 

9 Sep 97 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM: 

HQ AFPCDPPD 
550 C Street West Ste 06 
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-4708 

SUBJECT: 

orrection of Military Record 

W,OUESTF.D AC-: 

Applicant requests that his involuntary administrative 

discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-1 0 be changed to a disability retirement. 

UCTS:  Member was involuntarily discharged from the Air Force on 15 Apr 91 for 

conditions that interfere with military service, not disability, character and behavior disorder after 
serving seven years, six months, and twenty days on active duty. 

DISCUSSON:  We reviewed the AFBCMR application and verify the applicant was 

never referred to or considered by the Air Force Disability Evaluation System under the 
provisions of AFR 35-4.  The purpose of the military disability system is to maintain a fit and 
vital force by separating or retiring members who are unable to perform the duties of their grade, 
ofice, rank or rating.  Those members who are separated or retired by reason of physical 
disability may be eligible, if otherwise qualified, for certain disability compensations.  Eligibility 
for disability processing is established by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) when that board 
finds that the member may not be qualified for continued military service.  The decision to 
conduct an MEB is made by the medical treatment facility providing health care to the member 

On 2 Apr 91 member's commander initiated action under the provisions of AFR 39-10 to 

discharge him due to his inability to adapt in a military environment based on a personality 
disorder. 

During the period 7-1 9 Mar 91, member was admitted to the 

a psychiatric evaluation. A review of the psychiatric evaluation reveal 
diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with depressed mood.  Based on the Sheppard Hospital 
psychiatric evaluation dated 29 Mar 91, it is reasonable to find that the member could have been 
recommended and processed through the Air Force disability evaluation system under the 
provisions of AFR 35-4 and referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). Had the case been 
forwarded to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB), the board would have noted the 
mild nature of his adjustment disorder and would have found him "not unfit under the provisions 
of disability law and policy" and returned him to duty for appropriate administrative action. 

JWCIOWDATJON: We recommend denial of the applicant's request.  The applicant 

has not submitted any material or documentation to show he was unfit for continued military 

service as a result of a physical disability at the time of his administrative discharge. A%- 

HMIOLA, Colonel, USAF 
1 Chief, US&  Physical Disability Division 

Directorate of Pers Prog Management 

20 Jun 97 
97-00801 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  BCMR Medical Consultant 

1535 Command Drive, EE Wing, 3rd Floor 
Andrews AFB MD  20762-7002 

Applicant‘s entire case file has been reviewed and is forwarded with the following findings, 

conclusions and recommendations. 

REQUESTED ACTION:  The applicant was administratively discharged under the provisions 

of AFR 39-1 0, Para 6-16, for conditions that interfere with military service-not disability, on 15 
Apr 91 after 7 years, 6 months,  20 days on active duty.  He now applies requesting the records 
be changed to show a medical discharge. 

FACTS:  While assigned to the Gulf War Theater of Operations from 21 Aug 90 to 8 Feb 91, 
applicant’s interactions with military superiors was noted to deteriorate to the point of receiving 
pitalized at the Veterans’ Administration 
FB Hospital 7-19 March 1991.  On 

report on 1 Apr 91. 
B and transferred to 

agnosed with Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood and Personality 
Disorder, not othemvise specified.  The narrative report from this admission states: “He really 
never showed any signs of major depression.” There was obviously not found any indication of 
such a diagnosis, and after applicant‘s administrative discharge, the initial DVA evaluation again 
failed to find evidence of a major depression, the examiner concluding that “the veteran 
currently had no real impairment.”  This was in May 1991 , the month following applicant’s 
separation.  Further, in July 1992, a repeat psychiatric examination through the DVA found only 
an adjustment disorder with depressed mood.  Not until 22 Oct 96 do we find a diagnosis of 
major depression on a DVA rating examination for which applicant is now rated at 30% 
disability.  Evidence of record and medical examinations prior to separation indicate the 
applicant was fit and medically qualified for continued military service or appropriate separation 
and did not have any physical or mental condition which would have warranted consideration 
under the provisions of AFM 35-4.  Reasons for discharge and discharge proceedings are well 
documented in the records. Action and disposition in this case are proper and reflect 
compliance with Air Force directives which implement the law. 

The applicant had a separation physical exam on 12 Apr 91 during which applicant stated 
his health was “good”.  He had no unfitting condition and was found fit for worldwide duty.  His 
separation related to the personality disorder was IAW proper administrative directives. 

DISCUSSION:  The reason why the applicant could be declared fit for duty by the Air Force 

and later be granted 30% service-connected disability by the Department of Veterans Affairs 
(OVA) lies in understanding the differences between Title 10, USC, and Title 38, USC.. Title 10, 
USC, Chapter 61 is the federal statute that charges the Service Secretaries with maintaining a 
fit and vital force.  For an individual to be considered unfit for military service, there must be a 

medical condition so severe that it prevents performance of any work commensurate with rank 
and experience.  Once this determination is made, namely that the individual is unfit, disability 
rating percentage is based upon the member's condition at the time of permanent disposition, 
and not upon possible future events. Congress, very wisely,  recognized that a person can 
acquire physical or mental conditions which, although not unfitting at the time of separation, 
may later progress in severity and alter the individual's lifestyle and future employability.  With 
this in mind, Title 38, USC which governs the DVA compensation system was written to allow 
awarding compensation ratings for conditions that are not unfitting for military service.  This is 
the reason why an individual can be considered fit for military duty up to the day of separation 
or retirement, and yet soon thereafter receive a compensation rating from the DVA for service- 
connected, but militarily non-unfitting condition. Evidence of record establishes beyond all 
reasonable doubt that the applicant was medically qualified for continued active duty, that the 
reason for his separation was proper, and that no error or injustice occurred in this case. 

RECOMMENDATION:  The Medical Consultant for the BCMR recommends that the 

application be denied. 

FREDERICK W. HORNICK, Col., USAF, MC, FS 
Chief, Medical Consultant, BCMR 
Medical Advisor SAF Personnel Council