RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  97-01318
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.02; A92.35;
                              A86.00
            COUNSEL:  DAV


            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 10 July 1987 general discharge be changed to a medical discharge.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was improper because he was hospitalized for six  months
prior to his release with a general discharge.

In support of his request, applicant provided a Department of Veterans
Affairs (DVA) Rating Decision, dated 10 October 1996.  (Exhibit A)

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 18 July 1985, applicant enlisted in the Regular  Air  Force  for  a
period of four years.  His highest grade held was airman  first  class
(E-3).  He was reduced in grade from E-3 to airman (E-2) as  a  result
of punishment imposed under the provisions of Article  15,  UCMJ,  for
failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the  time  prescribed.
The record contains two Airman Performance Reports  (APRs)  reflecting
overall ratings of (oldest to latest):  9 and 7.

The service medical records reflect that  applicant  was  hospitalized
from 13 April to 10 July  1987  on  the  psychiatric  ward,  with  his
discharge date coinciding with his discharge date from the Air  Force.
The diagnoses  given  at  the  end  of  the  hospitalization  included
“Adjustment Disorder...manifested by  depression  and  an  episode  of
amnesia” and  “Mixed  personality  disorder  with  borderline  passive
aggressive  dependent  and  narcissistic  features.”   The   preparing
physician stated that the applicant was “not qualified  for  worldwide
service” and did not recommend retention on active duty.

On 12 June  1987,  the  squadron  commander  initiated  administrative
discharge  action  against  the  applicant  for  misconduct  -   minor
disciplinary infractions and recommended applicant be issued a general
discharge.  The reasons for the proposed action were  that  applicant:
received two letters of  reprimand  (LORs)  for  exceeding  the  speed
limit; was counseled for arriving late for work; was  counseled  twice
for writing insufficient funds checks; received an LOR for failure  to
report  for  duty  at  the  prescribed  time;  wrote  two   additional
insufficient funds checks; received an LOR for failure  to  report  to
the First Sergeant as he was told to do; was counseled for failure  to
arrive at  prescribed  time  for  a  mandatory  appointment;  received
Article 15  punishment  for  failure  to  go  at  prescribed  time  to
appointed place of duty; and received an LOR for giving  his  military
identification card to a civilian.  The commander further stated  that
before recommending discharge, applicant was repeatedly  counseled  on
his problems.  He  was  sent  to  the  Personal  Financial  Management
Program; however, after attending this course, he continued  to  write
checks for which he had no  funds  to  cover.   After  counseling,  he
continued to arrive late,  or  not  at  all,  to  duty  and  mandatory
appointments.  He did not recommend probation and rehabilitation.

On 12 June 1987,  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the  discharge
notification and that military legal counsel had been  made  available
to him.  He waived his right to consult counsel and waived  his  right
to submit statements in his own behalf.  On 23 June  1987,  the  Staff
Judge Advocate found the case file legally  sufficient.   On  29  June
1987, the discharge authority approved a  general  discharge,  without
probation and rehabilitation.

The Report of Medical Examination, dated 11 June  1987,  conducted  in
conjunction with applicant’s discharge, reflects he was qualified  for
worldwide service/39-10 separation.

On 10 July 1987, applicant was discharged under the provisions of  AFR
39-10,  with  service  characterized  as  general   (under   honorable
conditions).  He was credited with 1 year, 11 months, and 23  days  of
active duty service.

A DVA  Rating  Decision,  dated  19  March  1997,  reflects  that  the
applicant was  awarded  a  service-connection  disability  rating  for
schizoaffective disorder at 70% from 20 March 1995, increased to  100%
from 6 September 1996.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and stated  that
the medical records reveal sufficient evidence  to  support  favorable
consideration of the applicant’s  request.   His  comments,  in  part,
follow.

Following a  discussion  of  applicant’s  hospitalization  during  the
period 13 April to 10 July 1987, the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  noted
that the diagnoses given at the end of  the  hospitalization  included
“Adjustment Disorder...manifested by  depression  and  an  episode  of
amnesia” and  “Mixed  personality  disorder  with  borderline  passive
aggressive dependent and narcissistic  features.”   Neither  of  these
diagnoses would have triggered entry into  the  disability  evaluation
system (DES); however, they should not have prompted a statement  that
the individual was not worldwide qualified, either.  Having  had  that
assessment made, the applicant should have been presented to a Medical
Evaluation  Board  (MEB)  and  then  been  referred  to  the  Physical
Evaluation Board (PEB).  Placement on the Temporary Retired Disability
List (TDRL) would likely have been the recommendation of the PEB for a
period  of  observation  prior  to  final  separation.   Instead,  the
applicant was administratively separated  and  subsequently  presented
himself to the DVA in 1995 (no earlier reference found) where  he  has
remained under care since for  his  service-connected  schizoaffective
disorder which is currently rated at  70%  disabling  because  of  the
applicant being unemployable (subject to future revisions depending on
circumstances).

Considering this case in retrospect and considering  the  evidence  of
record, applicant should have been referred for MEB  action  while  in
his 3-month hospitalization with entry into the DES where a period  of
observation on the TDRL would most likely have shown mild  social  and
industrial impairment.  From this the applicant would most likely have
been recommended for separation with severance pay and 10% disability.
 (It appears from the records that he was able to function  adequately
in society for some eight years after his discharge before winding  up
in the DVA system with worsening psychiatric problems.)

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommended the records  be  corrected  to
show the applicant was found unfit  effective  10  July  1987  with  a
diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder with a disability rating of 10%.
 His records should also be changed to reflect separation under AFR 35-
4, and an honorable characterization of service should be  substituted
for his general (under honorable conditions) discharge, as much of his
misconduct that led to his discharge could readily  be  attributed  to
his underlying psychiatric illness.  The  proper  sequence  of  events
should have led to a dual action discharge package  with  the  medical
aspects overriding the administrative.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Disability Operations Branch, AFPC/DPPD, reviewed this application
and recommended denial, stating the applicant has  not  submitted  any
material or documentation to show that he was unfit due to a  physical
disability under the laws and provisions of Title 10, USC, at the time
of his administrative discharge.

Noting that the medical aspects of this case are explained by the BCMR
Medical Consultant (Exhibit C), DPPD stated they were not in  complete
agreement with his comments and  recommendations.   DPPD  stated  that
based on the psychiatrist’s comments and the tone of  the  disposition
in the narrative summary just prior to applicant’s separation,  it  is
felt that the applicant  was  properly  diagnosed  for  an  adjustment
disorder with mixed emotional features, which  is  not  an  unfitting,
ratable, or compensable  diagnosis  under  the  disability  evaluation
system.  Based  on  the  medical  data  presented,  had  an  MEB  been
completed and subsequently referred to the PEB,  the  applicant  would
have been returned to duty.  A review of applicant’s  case  file  does
not provide sufficient documentation to justify  changing  applicant’s
record to reflect a disability discharge.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded  to  applicant  and
his counsel on 15 June 1998 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  probable  error  or  injustice.    After   careful
consideration of the facts of this case, we  found  no  evidence  that
would lead us to believe responsible officials  applied  inappropriate
standards in effecting the  applicant’s  involuntary  discharge,  that
pertinent regulations were violated, or that  the  applicant  was  not
afforded all  the  rights  to  which  entitled  at  the  time  of  his
discharge.   The  evidence  of  record  supports  the  basis  for  the
applicant’s administrative  discharge;  i.e.,  numerous  incidents  of
minor misconduct involving failing to go to  his  appointed  place  of
duty on time and to mandatory appointments, writing  bad  checks,  and
traffic  violations.   We  noted  that  the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant
recommended favorable consideration  of  the  applicant’s  request  to
change his administrative discharge to  a  discharge  for  disability.
However, we do not agree.  We noted that his performance  reports,  up
until his hospitalization, reflected excellent  to  satisfactory  duty
performance. While it is true that  the  record  shows  the  applicant
experienced some mental distress shortly  before  his  separation,  we
note that the misconduct which resulted in  his  separation  commenced
approximately one year before that time.  Furthermore, we have seen no
evidence that the  diagnosis  of  personality  disorder  in  1987  was
erroneous or based on factors other than sound medical principles  and
the applicant’s symptoms at that time.   In  any  event,  we  are  not
persuaded that the disability for which  the  applicant  is  currently
receiving compensation from the DVA and  which  was  apparently  first
diagnosed in 1995, more than eight  years  after  his  discharge,  was
present at the time of his  administrative  separation  from  the  Air
Force.  In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded  that,  at  the
time of applicant’s discharge, the applicant was physically unfit  for
continued military service within  the  meaning  of  AFR  35-4,  which
implements the law.  Therefore, in the  absence  of  evidence  to  the
contrary, 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 probable  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 1 December 1998, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Panel Chair
      Mr. William E. Edwards, Member
      Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Oct 96; w/Counsel’s’ Letter,
                dated 21 Apr 97.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 23 Apr 98.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 21 May 98.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Jun 98.




                                   MICHAEL P. HIGGINS
                                   Panel Chair