AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-01109 

JUN  fl I 

HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REUUESTS THAT: 

1.  He be returned to flight status. 
2.  His  medical  records  be  amended  to  include  a  current 
differential  diagnosis  on  AXIS  I  of  Adjustment  Disorder  - 
Resolved; and, on AXIS I1 -  No Diagnosis. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

He is the victim of inconsistent, inappropriate and contradictory 
psychiatric  evaluations  which  have  stripped  him  of  his  flying 
status and demeaned him professionally and personally.  Counsel 
for  the  applicant  states  that  it  is  important  background  to 
understand  that  applicant  always  has  been  an  outstanding 
performer as evidenced by the Officer Performance Reports (OPRs). 
These OPRs include the time period of the-Air 
Force Base's 
,(AFB)  psychiatric  evaluations  and  show  no  diminution  in 
In  December  1995  applicant 
performance  during  this  period. 
returned  to 
In  this 
diagnosis  app icant  was  found  to  have  "AXIS  I:  Adjustment 
disorder  with  depressed  mood. 
Partner  relational  problem. 
Occupational  problem. 
If Personality  disorder,  not 
otherwise  specified  with  narcissistic  and  dependent  traits." 
Never had there been a diagnosis of personality disorder by any 
provider  at  any  time.  This  diagnosis  comes  from  a  clinical 
psychologist  who  used  only the MMPI-2 test  as a  basis  for the 
diagnosis  and  this  does  not  meet  even  the  most  rudimentary 
standard  of  care  requirements.  Counsel  states  that  the  ever 
shifting  series of  diagnoses, none  of  which  shows  significant 
pathology, has  only one  purpose  and  that  is  to  deny  applicant 
flight status, not because he has a current problem, but because 
he was perceived to have had a problem. 
In support of applicant's appeal, counsel submits copies of O P R s  
and medical documentation. 

a  third  time. 

AFB, -for 

AXIS  I1 : 

. 

D 

Applicant's submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
Applicant is currently serving on extended active in the srade of 
captain. 

Applicant was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Regular Air 
Force on  1 June 1988 and  attended Undergraduate Pilot Training 
(UPT) from 1 June 1988 through 27 July 1989. 
Applicant's OPR profile is as follows: 

PERIOD ENDING 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

3 May 90 
13 Dec 90 
1 Jun 91 
1 Jun 92 
1 Jun 93 
19 May 94 
19 May 95 
19 May 96 

31 Jan 97 

(C-9A Pilot)  Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
(Acft Cmdr)  Meets Standards 
(Asst. Chief  Meets Standards 
Current O p s )  
(Current Ops  Meets Standards 
Flt Ofcr) 
(Asst Flt 
Cmdr, Fld Trng Flt) 

Meets Standards 

-- 

Available records reflect that applicant was assigned duty as a 
C-9A  Aircraft  Commander,  Aeromed  Airlift  Squadron  effective 
kl April  1993.  He was  initially referred to the Mental Health 
Clinic in June 1993 which was secondary to an incident involving 
a medical flight crew member in December 1992.  It appears that 
he had a verbal altercation with a nurse at Andrews AFB, Maryland 
in  which  the  nurse  apparently  filed  a  complaint  against  the 
applicant. 

Applicant has had psychiatric evaluations/psychotherapy s 
was grounded from flying duties in 1993.  He was seen at 
AFB, 
on  three  occasions  seeking  reinstatement  of 
status and  has  been  denied.  In  the  latest  evaluation, dated 
3 January  1996, it  was  recommended that  he  not  be  returned  to 
flying at  this time.  The Chief, Aerospace  Clinical Psychology 
Function,  Neuropsychiatry  Branch  also  stated  that  he  did  not 
believe  applicant  is  ready  to  effectively  manage  the 
interpersonal demands and stresses of  the flight line much  less 
the possible scrutiny and testing that might accompany his return 
to the cockpit.  The Chief, Neuropsychiatry Branch approved the 
recommendation. 
Applicant, on 12 February 1996, requested that the results of the 
On 
evaluation,  between  11-15  December  1995,  be  overturned. 

2 

11 March 1996, The Air Force Medical Operations Agency, Office of 
AFB, ayl)b states  that  the  medical 
the  Surgeon  General , 
examination of applic 
tified medically disqualified for 
Flying Duty Class 11. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

AFB, 

The  AFBCMR  Medical  Consultant,  Medical  Advisor  SAF  Personnel 
Council,  stated  that  applicant  has  had  frequent  psychiatric 
evaluations/psychotherapy  since his grounding in 1993 following 
incidents  of  temper  outbursts  and  a  couple  of  unsafe  flying 
episodes in which he "wanted to see what it  (a C-9A Nightingale) 
would  do.''  He  has  been  seen  at 
on  three 
occasions  seeking  reinstatement of  flying  status  and  has  been 
denied  each  time, the  latest  in December  1995.  Psychological 
evaluation  at  that  time  was  thorough  and,  in  contrast  to 
applicant's  (counsel's) statement, a  complete  battery  of  tests 
were used  (not just the MMPI-2 he claims) to further strengthen 
the working diagnoses.  In February 1996 applicant submitted an 
appeal to the Air Force Surgeon General which was denied and the 
denial was upheld by the Chief of Staff and Secretary of the Air 
Force in November 1996.  He bases his current application on what 
he  perceives  as  an  inconsistent  characterization  of  his 
psychiatric  diagnoses. 
However,  the  Axis  I  diagnosis-- of 
Adjustment Disorder with mixed emotional features has been quite 
consistently recorded over the course of his treatment as has the 
Axis 11 impression of narcissistic personality traits. 
Review  of  available  records  shows  that  applicant  has  had 
,extensive therapy and  valid  interval  evaluations over the  last 
four years.  Competent medical  authority has  found him  unsuited 
to return to the flying environment at this time.  It is not the 
function of this office to overturn valid medical opinion or the 
considered opinion of offices dealing with waiver requests unless 
there is error or injustice found in such opinions.  In this case 
no such error or injustice is found.  The BCMR Medical Consultant 
is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted and 
the application should 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's counsel on 8 September 1997 for review and  response 
within 30 days.  Counsel responded on 19 May 1998 and attached a 
letter,  dated  27 
from  the  92  Medical  Group/SGOMH, 
Chief  Psychologist, 
Air  Force Base 
to the 
Federal Air  Surgeon 
rd  to conflicting d'iagnoses in the 
applicant's case. 

3 

Counsel's response, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit E. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

i-' 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 
2 .   The application was timely filed. 
3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After 
a  thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record  and  applicant's 
submission, we  are not persuaded that he  should be  returned to 
flight status or, that his medical records be amended to include 
a current differential diagnosis on AXIS I of Adjustment Disorder 
-  Resolved and, on AXIS I1 -  No Diagnosis.  His contentions are 
duly  noted;  however,  we  do  not  find  these  uncorroborated 
assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive  to 
override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  As stated by 
the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant,  the  applicant's  psychological 
evaluations were  thorough and a  complete battery  of  tests were 
used,  not  just  MMPI-2  as  the  applicant  claims.  The  Axis  I 
diagnosis of  Adjustment  Disorder  with  mixed  emotional  features 
has  been  consistently recorded over the  course of  treatment as 
has  the Axis  I1 impression of  narcissistic personality  traits. 
He  also  stated  that  applicant  submitted an  appeal  to  the  Air 
Force  Surgeon  General  in  February  1996  which  was  denied  and 
upheld by  the Chief of  Staff and Secretary of  the Air Force in 
November 1996. We therefore agree with the recommendations of the 
Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our 
decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that 
he has suffered either an error or an injustice. 
,We 
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief soughf. 
4.  The documentation provided with this case was sufficient to 
give the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a 
personal  appearance, with  or  without  counsel,  would  not  have 
materially added to that understanding.  Therefore, the request 
for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 
The  applicant be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  n o t  
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  material  error  or 
injustice;  that  the  application was  denied  without  a  personal 
appearance; and  that  the  application will  only be  reconsidered 

4 

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  12  May  1998  and  11  June  1998,  unger  the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603. 

Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member 
Mr. Loren S. Perlstein, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Apr 97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, dated 

12 Aug 97. 

Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Sep 97. 
Exhibit E.  Counsel's Letter, dated 19 May 98, w/atch. 

Panel Chair 

5