RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02347
            INDEX CODE:  110

            COUNSEL:  VFW

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect that he was discharged  by  reason
of physical disability and transferred to the retired  list  with  the
appropriate degree of disability.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was separated due to an illness acquired while in the Air Force.

Applicant’s complete submissions are attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 5 Nov 75, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  (RegAF)
for a period of four years in the grade of airman basic.

On 21 Sep 76, the applicant was counseled for failure to report to his
designated place of duty in a timely manner.

On 22 Sep 76, applicant was counseled for failure  to  report  to  his
designated place of duty in a timely manner.

On 23 Sep  76,  applicant  was  counseled  regarding  his  duties  and
responsibilities while assigned to the Vehicle Operations Section.

On 8 Feb 77, a psychiatrist indicated the applicant was seen on 25 Jan
77 after episodes of unusual  behavior.   It  was  felt  that  he  was
drifting towards a schizophrenic illness and should be on  medication.
The applicant refused to accept medication but was willing to talk  to
the chaplain but later refused.  The psychiatrist  indicated  that  it
was likely that the applicant will continue to  become  more  ill  and
should be hospitalized.

On 24 Feb 77, applicant was counseled regarding his failure to  accept
his responsibilities as  a  dispatcher  as  he  was  discourteous  and
uncaring in his position.  Applicant stated that he did  not  want  to
dispatch and felt he could not handle the  responsibilities.   He  was
removed from dispatch at that time.

On 26 Feb 77, a Report of Unauthorized  Absence  From  Place  of  Duty
indicated the  applicant  failed  to  report  for  duty  at  the  time
prescribed.  He was absent from his place of duty  from  7:30 a.m.  to
9:40 a.m.  He was assigned  to  perform  duties  as  vehicle  operator
during the hours of 7:30 a.m. to  4:30 p.m.,  Tuesday,  Thursday,  and
Saturday.

On 1 Apr 77, a Report of  Unauthorized  Absence  From  Place  of  Duty
indicated the applicant left his place of duty without permission  and
before the normal expiration of his duty day.  He was absent from  his
place of duty from 1 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.  He  was  assigned  to  perform
duties as barracks orderly during the hours of 7:45 a.m. to  4:30 p.m.
for five days.

On 2 May  77,  a  Mental  Health  Evaluation  was  conducted  and  the
applicant was seen by a psychiatrist.  The psychiatrist indicated  the
applicant was alert and responsive but back  into  his  “simple  hills
boy” script.  He had remained as bay orderly  since  his  unauthorized
absence in Mar 77.  He had decided that he did not have any reason  to
have anymore discussions with the psychiatrist, though that  was  part
of the agreement.  His performance on  the  job  had  been  considered
minimally responsive.  The psychiatrist indicated  the  applicant  had
expressed a strong preference to return to civilian status and  denied
any return to use of  marijuana  during  the  last  two  months.   The
psychiatrist  agreed  that  all  interests  would  be  served  if  the
applicant were  to  return  to  civilian  life.   His  diagnosis  was:
Inadequate Personality.

On 24 May 77, the  applicant  was  notified  that  the  commander  was
placing him on the control roster for a period of 90 days  because  of
substandard duty performance.

On 7 Jun 77, the applicant was enrolled in  the  Personal  Development
Program at the Human Development Center after being referred there  by
a psychiatrist and began group sessions on 13 Jun 77.

On 3 Jun 77, a statement from an airman indicated that on  28 May  77,
the applicant was sitting in the dispatch office when the airman  came
to work.  At 1 a.m., the airman was sitting in his  chair  across  the
room from the applicant and suddenly the applicant attacked him.   The
airman called the police to take the applicant  away  but  the  airman
dropped the charges and let the applicant go.

On 3 Jun 77, a statement from an airman first class indicated that  on
28 May 77, another  airman  was  dispatching  a  crew  bus  while  the
applicant was sitting  across  the  room.   The  applicant  was  using
profanity directed at the other airman when all of a  sudden  with  no
provocation, the applicant was across the room, hitting  Airman  L----
several times in the face.  He and another airman pulled the applicant
off Airman L----.

On 3 Jun 77, a statement from an airman indicated that on  28 May  77,
the applicant, unprovoked, walked over inside the dispatch office  and
started hitting Airman L---- severely on the head and shoulders.

On 3 Jun 77, a statement from  a  staff  sergeant  indicated  that  on
30 May 77, he reported to work and was sitting with the  applicant  in
the lounge when the applicant started to ask everyone in the lounge if
they read the Bible and that the devil had possessed him for the  last
five months and that the devil made him come down and beat  up  on  an
airman one night.  He said he felt better  but  the  devil  still  was
within him.

On 3 Jun 77, a  statement  from  a  technical  sergeant  indicated  he
interviewed the applicant on an allegation of an unprovoked attack  on
Airman L----.  The applicant stated to him that the devil  caused  him
to attack Airman L----.  He explained that the devil has been  talking
to him through individuals and that if he hit someone  he  would  feel
much better.  The technical sergeant questioned the applicant  on  his
selection of Airman L----; that if  he  had  any  provocation  or  ill
feelings towards him and applicant replied that  the  only  reason  he
attacked Airman L---- was because he (Airman L----) was  smaller  than
him.  The applicant further stated that the devil has been present and
talked to him on numerous occasions inticing him to action.   He  also
mentioned that he feels good and has no problems other than  the  ever
present feeling of the devil’s constant pressure.  The applicant  said
that he has a feeling of lust burning inside him that makes  him  feel
uncomfortable at times and at times very fulfilled but could not fully
explain his feelings in words.

On 20 Jun 77, the Chief,  Human  Development  Center,  indicated  that
while  in  the  group  session,  the  applicant  demonstrated  unusual
behavior such as stating that “my brain is messed up” and “I only have
a short time to live.”  He often made  statements  that  had  suicidal
connotations, such as that “it is easier to kill myself than  to  kill
others” and “the devil was coming to get me.”  On  several  occasions,
he mentioned the fact that he was going crazy and should be  committed
to an institution.  His actions and statements were often unstable and
at times appeared to be overcome by emotions, feeling  he  could  harm
someone else.  The Chief indicated that because of the  deeper  nature
of the applicant’s problems, their office could not provide  the  kind
and quantity of treatment necessary for recovery  and  he  recommended
the applicant be discharged as soon as possible so that he can receive
in-patient treatment offered by the Veterans Administration (VA).

On 20 Jun 77, a report of evaluation by a psychiatrist  indicated  the
applicant’s medical chart had been missing for the last two  to  three
weeks according to the personnel record room though  the  psychiatrist
was  aware  of  having  written  at  least  two  previous  reports  to
applicant’s commander after various incidents in  the  squadron.   The
following is  a  summary  of  the  psychiatrist’s  contacts  with  the
applicant based on fairly clear  recollections  of  the  varieties  of
interview:

            His first contact  was  in  the  Fall  of  1976  when  the
applicant referred himself  because  of  his  own  distress  with  his
squadron reputation of “playing the fool.”  The  applicant  identified
that he had been the class clown in high school  and  that  he  rather
enjoyed the careless and indifferent attitude that it allowed since he
was dedicated more to fun than study in spite of an at  least  average
mental endowment.  It was outlined at that time a procedure for him to
spend more behavioral time in a more serious  and  adult  role  if  he
wished to change his image in the group.  At that time, the  applicant
was alert, oriented,  responsive  with  generally  appropriate  affect
which  was  variable  and  no  evidence  of  psychotic   process,   no
organicity.  His rural West Virginia cultural  influence  was  obvious
but he perceived his situation  quite  clearly  and  was  voicing  his
preference to change himself.

            A  second  contact  was  at  the  request  of  applicant’s
squadron commander after the  applicant  had  his  government  vehicle
driving license suspended following a reported erratic  driving  of  a
bus and strange behavior in  the  squadron.   On  that  occasion,  the
applicant stated that strange events were happening around  him;  that
there  was  blood  and  other  signs  he  took  to  indicate  possible
intervention of demonic forces and he was confused by  the  appearance
of a woman who was disguised to look like his aunt.  These experiences
he found confusing but his affect was inappropriate and silly  and  it
was not clear if he believed his own reported  experiences.   At  that
time,  a  report  was  forwarded   indicating   the   probability   of
hospitalization for the applicant and  probable  separation.   Twenty-
four or 48 hours later  he  again  appeared  at  the  office  and  was
entirely free of any evidence of psychotic process.   He  indicated  a
need and a willingness to fulfill his obligated  service  so  that  he
could afford the higher education which he knew  he  needed.   He  was
alert and oriented, responsible and clear headed with a realistic  and
feasible plan for himself and a rededication of his efforts to improve
his performance.

            He was not seen again until the Spring of  1977  following
his leaving without authorization  to  return  to  his  home  in  West
Virginia.  He was brought back by his father and  at  that  time,  his
squadron commander, the applicant, and the psychiatrist, held a three-
way conference in which it was  decided  to  allow  the  applicant  to
demonstrate his  stability  and  responsibility  and  he  was  offered
regular appointments at the end of March and the beginning  of  April,
none of which he kept.  He was seen on 6 Jun following an incident  of
simple assault on a fellow squadron member.  This was preceded by  two
days in which he was talking about his discussions with the devil  and
being prompted by the devil’s voice but at the time of the  interview,
though he obliquely referred to those incidents, he  did  not  believe
them  and  understood  his  behavior  instead  as  feeling  silly  and
impulsive; “I just wanted to hit the guy.”  He was surprised  that  no
charges were lodged against him and felt that they should  have  been.
The psychiatrist  believes  that  his  second  and  third  report  was
forwarded indicating that the  applicant  should  be  administratively
separated.

            The psychiatrist’s last contact with the applicant was  on
17 Jun 77 when he was seen on an emergency basis.  At that  point,  he
was tense, anxious, angry and indicated that he had to be  immediately
separated from active duty.  He felt that he would only get in trouble
if he stayed and he did not want to run away again.  He insisted in  a
stubborn and childlike way that he would  not  take  any  orders  from
anybody in the future.  He was aware of the consequences  of  such  an
attitude but simply insisted that he would have  nothing  to  do  with
anyone bossing him around.  He was sent back to his  group  in  Social
Actions in an attempt to get him to cool down.

In conclusion, the psychiatrist indicated  that  over  the  course  of
several months of periodic interviews, the  applicant  came  off  with
three basic styles.  One is the unsophisticated country  bumpkin,  the
shrewd man hiding  behind  the  indifferent,  fun-loving  child.   The
second type is the sober, serious, concerned man who worries about his
habitual immaturity.  The third and most distressing style was a  one-
to two-day episode of psychological disorganization  with  a  paranoid
and aggressive flavor prompted by  alcohol  and  marijuana  use.   The
applicant claimed many times that this was put-on in an effort to  get
medically discharged and put on a pension “so I can go back  home  and
hunt.”  While this last style is not a put-on but rather an  index  of
the risk taking that he does with alcohol and substance abuse, it does
not constitute a diagnosis of schizophrenia.  His  diagnosis  is  much
more supportable as inadequate  personality,  evidenced  by  continued
inability to perform functions well within his intellectual range  and
instead tend to repeatedly use an immature and unsuccessful method for
dealing with real conflicts.  A secondary  diagnosis  of  intermittent
drug/alcohol abuse could also be sustained.

On 21 Jun 77, the commander recommended the  applicant  be  discharged
from the service for a personality disorder.

On 21 Jun 77, the applicant was notified by the commander that he  was
initiating action against the applicant under the provisions of AFM 39-
12, Chapter 2, Section A, paragraph 2-4b, with a view to effecting his
discharge from the Air Force.  The reasons  for  the  proposed  action
were:  the inability to  progress  satisfactorily  in  his  Air  Force
specialty code (AFSC).  The commander  indicated  that  the  applicant
had, on numerous occasions, used the  excuse  that  his  actions  were
being influenced by “the devil” and that the applicant performed  with
a lack of courtesy, excessive sarcasm, and an  overall  unprofessional
attitude.   The  commander  recommended  applicant  be  furnished   an
Honorable Discharge certificate.

On  21 Jun  77,  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the  Letter  of
Notification of action.

On 22 Jun 77, applicant  made  a  statement  indicating  that  he  was
notified by his  commander  that  he  was  recommending  applicant  be
discharged for unsuitability under AFM  39-12,  Chapter 2,  Section A,
and of the specific reasons  for  the  proposed  discharge.   He  also
indicated that military counsel was made available to him and that  he
was counseled as  to  his  rights  under  AFM  39-12;  that  he  fully
understood that if the discharge authority approved the recommendation
for discharge, the discharge authority would also determine  the  type
of discharge to be issued; and that he was not  submitting  statements
in his behalf.  The Judge Advocate, Area Defense Counsel (ADC), signed
the statement indicating that the preceding statement of the applicant
was his decision signed by him after he was fully counseled by the ADC
and after he was advised of his rights and privileges.

A review of the applicant’s  records  includes  a  Report  of  Medical
Examination, Standard Form 88, dated  22 Jun  77,  conducted  for  the
purpose of his pending administrative separation.  Comments under  the
clinical evaluation for Psychiatric included “Inadequate  personality.
Periodic  alcohol/drug  induced  episodes  of  disorganization,   Pre-
existing.”  Examination concluded that the applicant did not have  any
mental or physical defects warranting that he be  referred  to  a  PEB
under  military  disability  laws  and  policy.   Further  review   of
statements from the USAF Clinic, McGuire AFB, New Jersey, following  a
psychiatric evaluation revealed, “Amn S----  was  seen  on  25 Jan  77
after episodes of unusual behavior.  It was felt that he was  drifting
towards a schizophrenic illness  and  should  be  on  medication.   He
refused to accept medication, was willing to talk to the chaplain  but
later refused.  It is likely that he will continue to become more  ill
and should be hospitalized.”

On 22 Jun 77, an  evaluation  officer  was  appointed  to  review  the
commander’s recommendation for discharge.

On 24 Jun 77, an evaluation was conducted by the appointed  evaluation
officer who reviewed the applicant’s case  file,  his  Unit  Personnel
Records, and  all  other  related  papers.   Thereafter,  the  officer
conducted a personal interview with the applicant and advised  him  of
the following:

      a.    Explained the nature of the recommended  discharge  action
and counseled him regarding the case.

      b.    Of his right to submit a rebuttal and make a statement  in
his own behalf and that the evaluation officer would assist him in the
preparation of any written rebuttal or statement.

      c.    That if he does not desire to submit a rebuttal or make  a
statement in his own behalf, he would be required to  furnish  written
acknowledgment that he was afforded the opportunity to do so and  that
he had elected to waive his right.

The evaluation officer had two interviews with the applicant.   During
the first interview, he was advised of the action being taken and  his
right to submit a rebuttal or statement in his  behalf.   The  officer
indicated the applicant’s initial reaction was  defensive  in  nature.
He stated that everyone was trying to “mess” him up.  Toward  the  end
of the interview, he alluded to being driven insane or  approaching  a
nervous breakdown.  He was unable to reach a  decision  regarding  his
right to submit a rebuttal or statement and requested time to  contact
his father.  He was also growing tense and nervous  so  the  interview
was terminated and rescheduled.

At the second  interview,  the  applicant  was  totally  rational  and
willing to waive his right to rebut or make a statement.  During  both
interviews, he presented himself in  a  military  manner  and  behaved
accordingly throughout, although childlike at times.

The evaluation officer indicated that his observation of the applicant
was that he had difficulty associating with people.  He apparently had
few, if any, friends  and  considered  himself  a  “Loner.”   Off-duty
activities were limited to watching  TV  and  playing  pool.   He  did
express fear that the problem may also exist at home and the  possible
inability to find a job.  Several times he cited his overindulgence in
alcohol and drugs as a way of life prior  to  joining  the  Air  Force
(this was a rather boastful admission and may be imaginated).  He also
expressed strong faith in the Bible, hearing  voices,  seeing  things,
visits from the devil, visits from an angel, and an attempted suicide.

The evaluation officer’s findings were  that  the  applicant  was  not
suitable for further  military  service  in  the  Air  Force  for  the
following reasons:  A personality disorder which interfered  with  his
ability to adequately perform duties.  He was not a suitable candidate
for rehabilitation under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Chapter 4.   The
evaluation officer recommended the applicant be  discharged  from  the
Air Force; that he be furnished an honorable discharge; and,  that  he
should not be considered for rehabilitation under  the  provisions  of
AFM 39-12, Chapter 4.

The  applicant  indicated,  by  signing  a  statement,  that  he   was
personally interviewed by the evaluation officer; that he was  advised
of the nature of the action and counseling regarding the case; that he
was advised of his rights to submit a rebuttal and make statements  in
his own behalf and that the evaluation officer would assist him in the
preparation of any written statements or rebuttals; and, that  he  was
advised that if desire to submit a waiver of  such  opportunity  of  a
rebuttal or statements, he must sign a statement to that effect.   The
applicant indicated that he did not desire to  submit  a  rebuttal  or
statements concerning the action being taken or to the charges made.

On 27 Jun 77, the discharge action  was  reviewed  and  found  legally
sufficient.  The applicant received no  disciplinary  action  but  was
counseled on numerous occasions  for  various  incidents  which,  when
taken as a whole, validated the diagnosis  of  the  applicant  by  the
psychiatrist.

The Assistant SJA concluded the following:

      a.    The file contained no errors prejudicial to the rights  of
the applicant or the Air Force;

      b.     The  applicant  met  the  criteria  for  discharge  under
paragraph 2-4b, Section A, AFM 39-12, as competent  medical  authority
had determined that he had a personality  disorder  described  in  the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM)  of  Mental  Disorders,  which
interfered with the applicant’s  ability  to  adequately  perform  his
duties;

      c.    The file was sufficient to  support  the  applicant  being
given  an  honorable  discharge  in  that  the  documented   incidents
contained in the file were not of a nature so serious as  to  diminish
the honorable service to  date  and  more  serve  to  corroborate  the
diagnosis of the personality disorder by the psychiatrist; and,

      d.    The applicant would  not  be  a  proper  candidate  for  a
program of probation and rehabilitation under Chapter 4, AFM 39-12, as
he had not demonstrated a potential to serve satisfactorily in the Air
Force and his retention on active duty in a probationary status  would
not be consistent with the maintenance of good  order  and  discipline
within the Air Force.

The Assistant  SJA  recommended  the  applicant  be  discharged  under
paragraph 2-4b, Section A, AFM 39-12, with an honorable discharge  and
that he not be given probation and rehabilitation under Chapter 4, AFM
39-12.  The SJA concurred with the Assistant SJA’s recommendation.

On 28 Jun 77, the recommended discharge action  was  approved  by  the
commander.

On 1 Jul 77, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of  AFM
39-12 (Involuntary Discharge - Unsuitability,  Personality  Disorder -
Evaluation Officer Hearing)  with  an  honorable  characterization  of
service in the grade of airman first class.  He was  credited  with  1
year, 8 months, and 27 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this  application  and  indicated
that the applicant’s service was marked by  evaluations  beginning  in
Oct 76 for inappropriate  behavior  and  inadequate  job  performance.
Notes indicate that his behavior was, at times, very bizarre and  that
his actions were sometimes directed by  “the  devil.”   He  reportedly
indicated, while in the service, that he used marijuana prior to,  and
during, his time in the Air Force and that he was able to  communicate
with  others  through  mental  telepathy.   Additionally,  he  claimed
“special powers” but did not know  if  they  came  from  “God  or  the
Devil.”  The physician who  provided  care  from  Oct  76  to  Jun  77
variously described him as a “country  bumpkin,”  a  “sober,  serious,
concerned man who worries about his habitual  immaturity,”  and  “most
distressing...a   one-   to   two-day   episode    of    psychological
disorganization with a paranoid  and  aggressive  flavor  prompted  by
alcohol and marijuana use.”  The physician  did  not  feel  that  this
“constitute(d) a diagnosis of schizophrenia” but  rather  a  diagnosis
much more supportable as inadequate personality” this falling  in  the
category of Atypical Personality Disorders under  guidelines  of  DSM-
III.  A note written on 8 Feb 77 states:  “It was  felt  that  he  was
drifting towards a schizophrenic illness and should be on medication.”
 Treatment with an anti-psychotic medication, Stelazine, was begun  on
16 Feb 77 and continued “until he gets home” on 24 Jun 77.   Following
his discharge, the applicant was hospitalized in a  civilian  facility
in Nov 77 after an indecent exposure incident and  was  found  without
psychiatric diagnosis at the time.  In 1980, some  three  years  after
discharge, the applicant was hospitalized  again,  this  time  with  a
“possible schizophrenic” disorder and was later given  an  established
diagnosis of this disease.

The BCMR Medical Consultant further indicated  that  while  exhibiting
development of certain bizarre behavioral characteristics while in the
Air Force, the applicant did not  have  an  overly  psychotic  illness
detected or diagnosed.  It was not until several years after discharge
that he was diagnosed with schizophrenia, a  fact  the  Department  of
Veterans Affairs (DVA) has used to deny  service  connection  for  the
applicant’s current chronic  schizophrenia.   Having  the  benefit  of
retrospection, the BCMR Medical Consultant feels that an injustice has
occurred in this case based on clear evidence that the  applicant  was
suffering from a psychosis as seen in his behavior  and  delusions  of
being  controlled  by  outside  forces  and  being  able  to  mentally
communicate  with  other  individuals.   Hallucinatory  behavior   was
apparent in the applicant’s assertion that he heard voices telling him
to strike out at another airman,  an  incident  witnessed  by  several
other individuals.  This behavior is not  that  of  a  rational,  sane
individual.  Most significant is his own  physician’s  description  of
the  applicant’s  schizophrenia-like  behavior  and  actions  and  his
starting the applicant on medication specifically intended to  control
manifestations of psychoses.  This has been extensively  reviewed  and
affirmed by many civilian psychiatric  providers  in  the  intervening
years since the applicant was discharged, and, for reasons obscure  to
the BCMR Medical Consultant, service connection has been denied.   The
Consultant does not  find  evidence  that  an  exhaustive  psychiatric
investigation was ever completed, examinations which would surely have
confirmed the psychotic nature of the applicant’s illness.  The proper
course to be followed would have been to present the  applicant  to  a
Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) followed by Physical  Evaluation  Board
(PEB) consideration.  The likely outcome of this  process  would  have
been a medical disability separation with mild social  and  industrial
impairment, 10% disability, under VASRD  Code  9204,  Undifferentiated
Schizophrenia.  The BCMR Medical Consultant is  of  the  opinion  that
applicant’s records should be corrected to show that he was discharged
with 10% disability separation.  If this recommendation  is  approved,
any disability separation pay due the applicant is to be  computed  by
the appropriate agency.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

The Chief, Special Actions/BCMR Advisories, AFPC/DPPD,  also  reviewed
this application and verified that the applicant was never referred to
or considered by the Air Force Disability System under the  provisions
of AFM 35-4.  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 an 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 stated that comments provided by the evaluating officer during an
interview conducted  with  the  applicant  during  his  administrative
discharge process includes:  “....Several  times  he  cited  his  over
indulgence in alcohol and drugs as a way of life prior to joining  the
Air Force.”  Additionally, in a more recent letter from the applicant,
dated 9 Nov 98, one of the reasons he justifies his assault on  Airman
L---- was because, “He sold me drugs that  didn’t  get  me  high,”  an
admittance to his drug abuse while on active duty.

DPPD further indicated that the applicant’s case was forwarded to  the
Informal PEB (IPEB) for their evaluation.  Based on the  preponderance
of evidence, the board concluded that had the applicant been  referred
to an MEB and subsequently referred  to  the  IPEB,  they  would  have
recommended that he be discharged under other than  Title  10,  United
States Code (USC) (Existed Prior to Service (EPTS)), for  a  condition
(personality disorder) that is neither compensable nor  ratable  under
military disability law and policy.  Additionally, the board felt that
some of the applicant’s irrational behavior could have been attributed
to his abuse of alcohol and drugs while on active duty.   The  board’s
suspicion that the  condition  EPTS  is  further  confirmed  in  a  VA
Statement of the Case, dated 22 Dec  80,  that  was  provided  to  the
applicant during his appeal process.  The  VA’s  statement  concludes:
“The evidence  of  record  including  the  veteran’s  service  medical
records shows a diagnosis  of  personality  disorder  during  military
service which is held to have EPTS.  There is no evidence to establish
aggravation beyond normal progression during  the  veteran’s  service.
The currently diagnosed  schizophrenia  is  not  shown  to  have  been
incurred in nor aggravated during military  service  nor  shown  to  a
compensable degree  within  one  year  applicable  presumptive  period
following the veteran’s separation from service.”

A thorough review of the case file revealed that there is no  evidence
of any physical disability under the provisions of military disability
law and policy which would have justified an MEB  or  PEB  finding  of
unfit prior to his involuntary administrative discharge.  Further,  it
should be noted that while a personality disorder may render a  member
unsuitable   for   continued   military   service   and   justify   an
administrative discharge from military service, it  is  not  deemed  a
compensable disability under the provisions  of  Title  10,  USC,  and
Department  of  Defense  Instruction  (DODI)  1332.38,  the  governing
statute and directive  for  the  military  disability  program.   DPPD
recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  He  has  not  submitted
any material or documentation to show that  he  was  unfit  due  to  a
physical disability under the provisions of Chapter 61, Title 10, USC,
at the time of his involuntary administrative separation.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 11 Dec 98, counsel for the applicant provided  a  four-page  letter
from the applicant (see Exhibit F).

On 26 Jul  99,  the  applicant  provided  a  six-page  statement  (see
Exhibit G).

On 29 Jul 99, counsel provided a statement indicating his  concurrence
with the BCMR Medical Consultant that an  injustice  has  occurred  in
this case (see Exhibit H).

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  We  note  the  advisory
opinion from the Chief  Medical  Consultant,  who  indicates  that  an
injustice has occurred in this case based on clear evidence  that  the
applicant was suffering from a psychosis as seen in his  behavior  and
delusions of being controlled by outside  forces  and  being  able  to
mentally communicate with other individuals.  The  Medical  Consultant
stated that he did not find evidence that  an  exhaustive  psychiatric
investigation was ever completed, examinations which would surely have
confirmed the  psychotic  nature  of  the  applicant’s  illness.   The
Medical Consultant indicates that the proper course to be followed  in
the applicant’s case would have been to present him to an MEB followed
by PEB consideration.  Based on the above, we  believe  the  applicant
should have been compensated at  10%.   Therefore,  we  recommend  his
records be corrected as indicated below.

4.    Applicant’s request for a disability retirement is  duly  noted;
however, he has not provided sufficient  documentation  to  support  a
disability retirement.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence  to  the
contrary, we find  no  compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  his
request for a permanent disability retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

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 30 Jun 77, he was 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 is Other and Unspecified Neurosis, VASRD Code 9410, rated  at
10%; that the total combined compensable  rating  was  10%;  that  the
disability may be permanent;  that  the  disability  was  not  due  to
intentional misconduct or willful neglect; that the disability was not
incurred during a period of unauthorized absence; that the  disability
was not incurred during a period of national emergency; and  that  the
disability was not received in line of duty  as  a  direct  result  of
armed conflict.

      b.    He was not released from active duty on 1 Jul 77,  but  on
that  date,  he  was  honorably  discharged  by  reason  of   physical
disability with entitlement to disability severance pay.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 4 November 1999, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Member
              Ms. Melinda J. Loftin, Member
              Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote)

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Aug 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 17 May
                   99.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 17 Jun 99.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Jul 99.
     Exhibit F.  Letter fr counsel, dated 11 Dec 98, w/atch.
     Exhibit G.  Letter fr applicant, dated 26 Jul 99.
     Exhibit H.  Letter fr counsel, dated 29 Jul 99.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair


INDEX CODE:  110

AFBCMR 98-02347




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 30 June 1977, he was 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 is Other and Unspecified Neurosis, VASRD Code 9410, rated  at
10%; that the total combined compensable  rating  was  10%;  that  the
disability may be permanent;  that  the  disability  was  not  due  to
intentional misconduct or willful neglect; that the disability was not
incurred during a period of unauthorized absence; that the  disability
was not incurred during a period of national emergency; and  that  the
disability was not received in line of duty  as  a  direct  result  of
armed conflict.

            b.   He was not released from active duty on 1 July  1977,
but on that date, he was honorably discharged by  reason  of  physical
disability with entitlement to disability severance pay.






                                                            JOE     G.
LINEBERGER
                                                         Director
                                                           Air   Force
Review Boards Agency