RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00826
            INDEX CODE:  108.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general discharge be changed to a honorable medical discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Air Force failed  in  1982  to  recognize  that  he  was  severely
mentally ill with schizophrenia (paranoid,  chronic),  and,  in  error
separated him due to “unsuitability  -  apathy,  defective  attitude,”
with a general discharge.

He believes his record will show that the  Air  Force  erred  when  it
failed to 1) explain or address the inconsistency in the record  which
undermines their conclusions; 2) provide sufficient reasons and  bases
for their findings and conclusions on all material issues of fact  and
law presented in the record; and 3) cite independent medical authority
or  to  quote  recognized  medical  treatises  to  substantiate  their
conclusions.

In support of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  copies  of  his
separation document (DD Form 214), psychiatric and  social  industrial
examinations, and other extracts from his medical records.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 26 Dec 79.  He received
three Airman Performance Reports, in  which  the  overall  evaluations
were (earliest to latest) 7, 7, and 5, respectively.

On 14 Apr 82, the applicant’s commander notified  the  applicant  that
she was initiating action against him with a  view  to  effecting  his
discharge from the Air Force.  The reason for the proposed action  was
his apathy and  defective  attitude  or  inability  to  expend  effort
constructively as evidenced by:

      a.  The applicant, without authority, left his  appointed  place
of duty on 26 Oct 81, for which he received an Article 15 on 6 Nov 81.

      b.  He failed to go at the  time  prescribed  to  his  appointed
place of duty and was derelict in the performance  of  his  duties  by
failing to remain awake while on duty  on  5  Feb  82,  for  which  he
received an Article 15 on 12 Feb 82.

      c.  On 20 February 1982, he failed to go at the time  prescribed
to his appointed place of duty, violated a lawful  general  regulation
by failing to have the shirt of his utility uniform buttoned  and  was
disrespectful  in  deportment  towards  his  superior  noncommissioned
officer, for which he received Article 15 punishment.

      d.  On 13 Jul 81, he received an Armed Forces Traffic Ticket for
not wearing seat belts, not  wearing  shoes  while  driving,  and  not
keeping his vehicle registration current.  This was his fifth  traffic
ticket within 7 months (2 moving  and  3  non-moving),  for  which  he
received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) on 20 Aug 81.

      e.  On 3 Aug 81, he was late for  roll  call  at  his  appointed
place of duty, for which he received an LOR on 20 Aug 81.

      f.  On 23 Sep 81, he failed to report for AFR 35-10 reinspection
 as directed, for which he received an LOR on 5 Oct 81.

      g.  On 15 Oct 80, he failed to report for duty, for which he was
counseled on 16 Oct 80.

      h.  On 10 Aug 81, he reported to work 45 minutes late, for which
he was counseled on 10 Aug 81.

      i.  On 23 Sep 81, he  violated  AFR  35-10,  for  which  he  was
counseled.

      j.  On 27 Jan 82, he failed to report  for  duty  on  time,  for
which he was counseled on 28 Jan 82.

The applicant was advised of his rights  in  the  matter  and  that  a
general discharge would be recommended.

An evaluation of the case file  on  the  applicant  was  conducted  on
21 and 22 Apr 82.  The evaluation officer found that the applicant was
unsuitable for further military service because of demonstrated apathy
and defective attitude.

In a legal review of the discharge case file, dated  27  Apr  82,  the
Assistant Staff Judge Advocate found the file was  legally  sufficient
and recommended that  the  applicant  be  discharged  with  a  general
discharge.

On 27 Apr 82, the discharge authority approved  the  discharge  action
and directed that the applicant be furnished a general discharge.

On 3 May 82, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of  AFM
39-12 (Unsuitability - Apathy, Defective  Attitude)  and  furnished  a
general discharge.  He had served 2 years, 4  months  and  8  days  on
active duty.

A  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)  Rating  Decision,   dated
6 May 97, indicates the applicant was granted  service-connection  for
paranoid  schizophrenia.   The  compensable  rating  awarded  was  100
percent, with an effective date of 5 August 1992.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and noted that
the applicant was cited for numerous disciplinary infractions  in  the
course of his service which led to his general discharge.   Since  his
discharge he has been treated for chronic schizophrenia and  has  been
rated  by  the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  initially  at   70%
disability in Mar 97 and then at 100 percent disability with  service-
connection being affirmed in their decision, dated 6 May 97.  A strong
statement from the applicant's ex-wife detailed  behavior  during  his
service years as clearly bizarre and showing signs of mental  illness,
and further corroborating statements from his  mother,  with  whom  he
lived after his discharge and divorce, affirmed his abnormal  behavior
in the months immediately following his discharge.  The  most  clearly
incriminating evidence that he suffered from  a  developing  psychosis
was found in his service medical records dated 11 Nov 81 and 12 Nov 81
in which, as a self-referral, the applicant stated  to  mental  health
clinic technicians that he was hearing voices and seeing  things  that
others around  him  were  not  able  to  discern.   According  to  the
applicant's statement, he was seen by a psychiatric provider once, but
did not return because of his distrust of him.  The encounter,  if  it
occurred, was not documented in  the  medical  records  available  for
review.  The fact is, the applicant presented himself to mental health
services  during  his  period  of  service  with  apparently  bonafide
evidence  of  psychotic  hallucinations/behavior  and  this  was   not
considered in his discharge processing.

According to the Medical Consultant, the case clearly  represented  an
injustice  in  its  disposition.   An  individual  who  is  constantly
receiving administrative actions, who presents to mental  health  with
valid concerns of hallucinatory disturbances, and whose  wife  notices
an extreme change in behavior (to the point of a threat on  her  life)
was  not,  apparently,  afforded  proper  psychiatric  follow-up   and
consideration as a discharge package was prepared resulting in a less-
than-honorable characterization of service.  The  proper  course  that
should have been followed would have been to thoroughly  evaluate  the
applicant's psychiatric  condition  with  presentation  to  a  Medical
Evaluation Board.  Evaluation  in  the  disability  evaluation  system
should have followed where the most likely recommendation  would  have
been unfit for duty.

The Medical Consultant was of the  opinion  that  that  the  applicant
should   have   been   medically   discharged   with   an    honorable
characterization of service because of mental illness interfering with
his ability to perform military duty.  The degree of disability  award
determination, if any,  is  left  to  officials  within  the  Division
Disability  (HQ  AFPC/DPPD)  to  decide  if  this  recommendation   is
approved.

A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is  at  Exhibit
C.

The Physical Disability Division, AFPC/DPPD, reviewed this application
and recommended  denial.   According  to  DPPD,  the  purpose  of  the
military disability system is to maintain a fit  and  vital  force  by
separating members who are unable  to  perform  the  duties  of  their
office grade rank or rating.  Members who are separated or retired for
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 care to the member.

DPPD indicated  that  they  carefully  reviewed  the  application  and
verified that the member was never referred to or  considered  by  the
Air Force Disability Evaluation System under the provisions of AFM 35-
4.  During the applicant's administrative  discharge  processing,  the
report of medical examination conducted at George AFB  hospital  on  9
Mar 82 commented that "There are no physical or  mental  defects  that
would warrant separation IAW AFM 35-4."  The medical examination  also
reflected no change in his permanent physical profile  and  found  him
qualified for world-wide duty during this period.

DPPD stated that the applicant is basing his  request  for  a  medical
discharge on subsequent Veterans Affairs (VA) evaluations and  ratings
effective some 10 years following his discharge from  the  Air  Force.
The medical aspects  of  this  case  were  explained  by  the  Medical
Consultant.  However, they disagreed with his comment that had the MEB
been referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB)  the  member  would
have been found unfit for a physical disability under  the  provisions
of Title 10, USC.  Had the case been referred to  the  PEB  (a  Branch
within their Division), the member would have been  returned  to  duty
for disposition through appropriate administrative  channels.   Again,
the  base  hospital  at  the  time  of  his  administrative  discharge
processing clearly stated that he had no physical  or  mental  defects
that justified his separation under the provisions of AFM 35-4.

DPPD noted that the Department of Defense Instruction  (DODI)  1332.38
addresses inherent defects such as  behavioral  disorders,  adjustment
disorders, personality disorders, and primary mental  deficiencies  as
conditions not ratable or compensable under  the  physical  disability
evaluation system.  After a thorough review of  the  applicant's  case
file, DPPD indicated that they found no errors or irregularities  that
would justify the changing of the  records  to  reflect  a  disability
discharge.  In  their  view,  the  applicant  has  not  submitted  any
material or documentation to show that he was unfit due to a  physical
disability under the provisions of Title 10 USC at  the  time  of  his
involuntary administrative discharge from active duty.

A complete copy of the DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on  17
Aug 98 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable injustice.  The evidence of record reflects that
the applicant was involuntarily discharged for unsuitability - apathy,
defective attitude.  The applicant contends that he should  have  been
medically discharged because he was mentally  ill.   However,  in  his
view, the Air Force failed to recognize his illness.  After a thorough
review of the available evidence, we tend to agree  with  the  Medical
Consultant’s assessment of this case.  We  noted  that  the  applicant
appeared to exhibit signs of mental illness during his  service  years
through his abnormal and bizarre behavior.  We  also  noted  that  the
applicant  presented  himself  to  mental  health  with  concerns   of
hallucinatory disturbances, indicating that he was hearing voices  and
seeing things.  Furthermore, we noted  that  the  applicant  has  been
granted  a  service-connection  for  paranoid  schizophrenia  with   a
compensable rating of 100 percent.  The Medical Consultant is  of  the
opinion the applicant had a developing psychosis and that had he  been
properly evaluated for his psychiatric condition,  particularly  after
his self-referral to mental health services, he most likely would have
been found unfit for duty.  In view of the above and  to  resolve  any
possible injustice in this case, we  recommend  that  the  applicant’s
records be corrected as indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

      a.  On 1 May 82, he was found unfit to perform the duties of his
office, rank,  grade  or  rating  by  reason  of  physical  disability
incurred while entitled to receive basic pay; that  the  diagnosis  in
his case was paranoid schizophrenia, VA Diagnostic Code 9203, rated at
30%; that the compensable percentage was 30%; and that the  degree  of
impairment was permanent.

      b.  On 2 May 82, he was honorably discharged  and,  effective  3
May 82, he was permanently retired by reason  of  physical  disability
under the provisions of AFR 35-4, rather  than  discharged  under  the
provisions of AFR 39-12.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 13 May 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
      Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Member
      Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Mar 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated
                 18 Jun 98.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 30 Jul 98.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 17 Aug 98.




                                   MARTHA MAUST
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR 98-00826




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to , be corrected to show that:

            a.  On 1 May 82, he was found unfit to perform the duties
of his office, rank, grade or rating by reason of physical disability
incurred while entitled to receive basic pay; that the diagnosis in
his case was paranoid schizophrenia, VA Diagnostic Code 9203, rated at
30%; that the compensable percentage was 30%; and that the degree of
impairment was permanent.

            b.  On 2 May 82, he was honorably discharged and,
effective 3 May 82, he was permanently retired by reason of physical
disability under the provisions of AFR 35-4, rather than discharged
under the provisions of AFR 39-12.





    JOE G. LINEBERGER

    Director

    Air Force Review Boards Agency