RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02654
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from “2Q” to “1” so he
can enter the Vermont Air National Guard.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The doctors were not experienced with the type of problem he was having at
the time of his discharge. This problem, an eating disorder, is seldom
incapacitating. Prior to his seeking supportive counseling about the
matter, none of the officers nor enlisted men he served with knew of this
issue. The record and disposition are unjust due to the fact that the
eating disorder did not impair his ability to serve and fulfill all of his
duties. He believes he can be an asset to the Air Force and wishes to
serve in the Vermont Air National Guard. They will give him a physical and
enlistment test if he can get his RE code changed to a “1.” With regard to
the other “diagnosis considered but not ratable,” he does not have a
personality disorder. The civilian doctor he met with has stated that he
is and remains asymptomatic, and his past history would not interfere with
his military service. There are no indicators of an underlying disorder,
disease, or problem. He thinks the doctor that evaluated him at Andrews
AFB believed he was acting in the best interest of the Air Force, not
necessarily him. The labels given him were because of the unfamiliarity of
the issue he was requesting help with.
In support of his request, he submits two statements from the Behavior
Therapy and Psychotherapy Center, Degree of Associate in Science, College
Transcripts and Awards.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 1 February 1984 in the grade
of airman basic for a period of 4 years.
On 26 August 1986, the applicant was presented to medical attention at
Keflavik, Iceland where he was identified as bulimic.
On 21 December 1986, the applicant was hospitalized for evaluation and
treatment.
On 16 March 1987, the applicant was presented to a Medical Evaluation Board
(MEB) that convened at Andrews AFB, MD, which referred his case to the
Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB).
On 24 March 1987, the IPEB found the applicant unfit for continued military
duty with a diagnosis of bulimia, with moderate social and industrial
impairment. This condition existed prior to service (EPTS) without service
aggravation. Other diagnosis considered but not ratable: mixed personality
disorder, chronic, severe. The IPEB recommended discharge under other than
Chapter 61, 10 USC.
On 30 March 1987, the applicant agreed with the findings and recommended
disposition of the PEB.
On 13 April 1987, the Secretary of the Air Force directed that the
applicant be discharged under other than Chapter 61, 10 USC.
Applicant was honorably discharged on 6 May 1987, in the grade of senior
airman, in accordance with AFR 35-4, Disability Existed Prior to Service No
Severance Pay. He served a total of 3 years, 3 months and 6 days of active
military service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Consultant, reviewed this application and states that the
applicant was discharged when a disqualifying medical condition that
predated his Air Force enlistment was revealed. Evidence of record shows
that this matter was appropriately handled and that discharge was in
accordance with regulations which support the law. The applicant’s request
to change his RE code so as to be able to serve in the National Guard
cannot be favorably recommended as AFI 48-123, Attachment 3, paragraph
A3.23(3) states specifically that an “...eating disorder(s) that (is)
habitual or persistent (occurring beyond age 12)” is disqualifying for
appointment, enlistment or induction. While
commending the applicant on his desire to further serve his country in a
reserve capacity, the Medical Consultant states that he must recommend
denial of his request.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and states he finds his RE code
designation unfair. The diagnosis at discharge was more designed for his
discharge than treatment. He honestly does not remember being given
extensive physchological testing. He met with the Air Force doctor three
or four times. The rest was waiting as there did not seem any way he was
going back to duty. He accepted his fate because he did not see any way he
was going to be allowed to stay. He was immature at the time. Enough time
has passed to prove he is not bulimic. He needed to correct a maladaptive
behavior and has done so. He brought an issue to the Air Force’s attention
because he thought that he would receive help with his personal problem.
He did not realize this would end his career in the Air Force. He states
that he does not have a personality disorder. How could he accomplish the
jobs in the Air Force or continue to work and improve in civilian life if
that were true. The only person to diagnose him with a personality
disorder is the Air Force doctor. He believes this was done to reinforce
the case to discharge him. He is willing to take any steps the Board
wishes, in an effort to change his RE code. He is requesting a waiver of
AFI 48-123, Attachment 3, Paragraph A3.23 as his condition is not habitual
or persistent. He has over eight years of proof, from April 1990 to
present. He respectfully asks this Board to grant his request and allow
him the chance to serve his country once again.
Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. While we can understand
applicant’s desire to reenter the service, the fact remains that he was
diagnosed with a mixed personality disorder as well as bulimic. In
accordance with the applicable regulation, applicant is disqualified for
appointment, enlistment or induction in the Air Force. In view of the
above findings, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Chief,
Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion
that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis upon which to recommend favorable action on this
application.
_________________________________________________________________
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 11 May 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Mr. Edward C. Koenig, III, Member
Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Sept 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 26 Oct 98.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 Nov 98.
Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 15 Dec 98, w/atchs.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
On 31 October 1996, the Secretary of the Air Force agreed with the findings of the IPEB and directed the applicant's permanent retirement, with a 30 percent disability rating. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant stated that the applicant served his last five years of military service with a severe eating disorder that resulted in excessive weight loss and physical disability that was thoroughly evaluated at Wilford Hall Medical Center in 1994. Accordingly, we recommend that...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00122
The Board evaluates DVA evidence proximal to separation in arriving at its recommendations, but its authority resides in evaluating the fairness of DES fitness decisions and rating determinations for disability at the time of separation. The examiner diagnosed bulimia nervosa, dysthymic disorder, major depressive disorder, recurrent, in partial remission, dependent personality traits and poor family support with a history of multiple sexual assaults, and occupational stress. Other PEB...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02236
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant summarized the information contained in the applicant’s personnel and medical records and states that the applicant’s condition of cognitive impairment is permanent, but is not judged to be stable, and does not meet or exceed a disability rating of 80 percent. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military...
The appropriate Air Force offices 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 applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). He applies now to change his reenlistment code from "2Q" to one that will allow reentry to the military if and when he might choose.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-1997-03689-2
His medical condition has changed and improved since his last evaluation by the Air Force in March 1996. The ROTC cadet command referred back to his original Medical Evaluation Board ruling without consideration of his improved condition. The BCMR Medical Consultant notes that while the applicant reports he has improved his exercise tolerance, asthma is a condition that can remain symptom free over extended periods (as evidenced by his recurrence of asthma on active duty after over 10...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-1998-01854
The Air Force Form 422, dated 21 Apr 1989, indicates removal from training and placement into casual status “as soon as administratively possible” due to adjustment disorder with an expiration date of 28 Apr 1989. They are the points of contact and waiver authority for personnel having prior service who desire to return to duty. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Apr 03.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00342
Between 1998 and 2001 prior to his activation, his civilian physicians had treated his Anxiety Disorder with various medications. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFRC/DPM recommends granting Item A by awarding the applicant 10 active duty pay and points for the 1-10 Feb 04 TDY to Lackland AFB, TX, because he should have been on active duty orders at that time. Based on the available documentation, the Consultant concludes the...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03284
On 15 Dec 63, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Counsel (SAFPC) reviewed his rebuttal to the FPEB findings and concurred with the IPEB's recommendation. The VA disability rating code initially utilized in 1963 by the PEB was reportedly 9203, indicating "Schizophrenia, paranoid type," and VA rating code 9208 was utilized in the final PEB action, depicting a "Delusional Disorder." The complete BCMR Medical Consultant's evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2003-02068-4
THIRD ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02068-4 INDEX CODE: 110.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code and narrative reason for separation be changed. The psychiatrist stated neither his evaluation nor that of the psychological consultant could support a diagnosis of...
The AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit L. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant's counsel reiterated his previous assertions and states that he disagrees with DPPD and JA that the applicant did not provide any new evidence. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel reviewed the additional advisory and provided a response which...