RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02906
            INDEX NUMBER:  108.01; 110.02

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His honorable discharge on 2 Jun 98, be changed to a medical discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was diagnosed with a mental condition and will be  on  drugs  to  prevent
loss of control for the rest of his life.  At the time of his discharge,  he
was afraid to request a medical discharge (Exhibit A).

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the regular Air Force on 22 Mar 95, in  the  grade
of E-3.  He was promoted to the grade of E-4, effective 22 Jul  97.   On  26
May 98, the applicant’s commander recommended  that  he  be  discharged  for
conditions that interfere with military service (specifically for  a  mental
disorder) with an honorable discharge.  The applicant  was  notified  on  26
May 98, and waived his rights to counsel and to  submit  statements  in  his
behalf.  On 26 May 99,  a  legal  review  of  the  administrative  discharge
action found the case legally sufficient.  He  was  subsequently  discharged
on 2 Jun 98,  by  reason  of  a  personality  disorder,  with  an  honorable
discharge.  He had served 3 years, 2 months and 11 days on active duty.

The  relevant  facts  pertaining  to  the  applicant’s  medical   condition,
extracted from  his  military  and  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)
records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate  office  of
the Air Force.  Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in  this
Record of Proceedings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this  application  and  recommended  no
change in the applicant’s records.  The applicant  was  medically  evaluated
over a sufficient  length  of  time  while  in  the  hospital  for  a  valid
determination of  his  underlying  personality  disorder  that  led  to  his
discharge.  Since personality orders are unsuiting as opposed  to  unfitting
conditions, the applicant was not  a  candidate  for  consideration  in  the
disability evaluation system.  Evidence of record shows that  the  applicant
was properly evaluated, that his administrative discharge  was  appropriate,
and that no error or injustice occurred (Exhibit C).

The Physical Disability Division, AFPC/DPPD, reviewed this  application  and
recommended approval.  Their discussion of the case follows.

We carefully reviewed the application and  verify  that  the  applicant  was
never referred to or considered  by  the  Air  Force  Disability  Evaluation
System under the provisions of AFI 36-3212.  The  purpose  of  the  military
disability evaluation 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 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.

A review of the applicant’s  administrative  discharge  package  revealed  a
mental health  evaluation  conducted  by  the  staff  psychiatrist,   and  a
subsequent concurrence of stated findings by  the  R---  AFB  Medical  Group
commander.  During the mental evaluation,  the  member's  behavior  appeared
aggressive, he was fully  alert,  oriented,  depressed,  confused,  and  his
thought process abnormal, with  a  fair  memory.   Based  on  his  extensive
evaluation,  the  following  findings  were  made:   Axis   I:   Cyclothymic
Disorder, Provisional, Axis II:  Personality Disorder, not otherwise  stated
(Borderline and Antisocial Personality traits), with no Axis III  diagnosis.
 Evaluation did not include a military or a civilian social  and  industrial
adaptability impairment statement.

To ensure that the member received a full and  fair  hearing,  the  member's
case was forwarded to the Informal  Physical  Evaluation  Board  (IPEB)  for
their evaluation.   Based  on  the  preponderance  of  evidence  within  the
records, the Board  would  have  recognized  that  the  member  had  both  a
provisional  Axis  I  diagnosis  of  Cyclothymic  Disorder,  a  ratable  and
compensable condition, and a Personality Disorder, which is  a  non-ratable,
non-compensable  condition  under  military  disability  laws  and   policy.
Subsequently, the Board would have found  the  member  unfit  for  continued
military service and recommended either Discharge with Severance Pay  (DWSP)
or would have placed him on the Temporary  Disability  Retired  List  (TDRL)
depending on the severity and stability of the condition at the time of  the
IPEB's assessment.

Because the member's separation mental health evaluation did not  include  a
social and industrial (S&I) adaptability impairment statement,  we  utilized
some of the information  from  the  Veterans  Administration's  (VA)  mental
evaluation dated  2  Feb  99,  (completed  some  six  months  following  his
administrative discharge) in making our assessment.   Again,  based  on  the
preponderance of evidence, and giving the member the benefit of  the  doubt,
we  determined  that  our  recommendation  would  have  been  DWSP  with   a
disability rating of 10 percent, also noting that the  member's  Personality
Disorder  was  likely  a  contributing  factor  to  the  severity   of   his
Cyclothymic Disorder.  Based on the IPEB's assessment, they  concluded  that
it appears that the member's diagnosis for Cyclothymic  Disorder,  which  is
ratable and compensable under military disability laws and policy, may  have
been overlooked during  the  administrative  discharge  process  causing  an
injustice to the applicant.

AFPC/DPPD’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the  applicant  on  15
Oct 99, for review and response.  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 timely filed.

3.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice  to   warrant   changing   the
applicant’s record to reflect  he  was  discharged  by  reason  of  physical
disability.  We accept the opinion of the USAF Physical Disability  Division
that, based on a preponderance of the evidence of record, the  diagnosis  of
the applicant’s condition of Axis I, Cyclothymic  Disorder,  a  ratable  and
compensable condition under the under military laws  and  policy,  may  have
been overlooked during the  administrative  discharge  process.   Therefore,
the applicant’s records should be corrected to the extent 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 Jun 98, he was found unfit  to  perform  the  duties  of  his
office, rank, grade or rating by reason of a  physical  disability  incurred
while entitled to basic pay; that the diagnosis in his case was  Cyclothymic
Disorder, VASRD Code 9431, rated at 10  percent;  that  the  disability  was
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; and that the disability was not received in  the  line
of duty as a direct result of armed conflict.

      b.  He was not involuntarily released from active duty  on  2 Jun  98,
but on that date, he was  honorably  discharged  by  reason  of  a  physical
disability with  entitlement  to  disability  severance  pay,  rated  at  10
percent under the provisions of AFI 36-3212.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 6 Jan 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
            Ms. Cathy L. Boockholdt, Member
            Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member

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

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Oct 98, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 4 Aug 99.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 20 Sep 99.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIB, dated 15 Oct 99.





               CHARLES E. BENNETT
               Panel Chair





AFBCMR 98-02906


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 APPLICANT, SSAN, be corrected to show that:

            a.  On 1 Jun 98, he was found unfit to perform the duties of
his office, rank, grade or rating by reason of a physical disability
incurred while entitled to basic pay; that the diagnosis in his case was
Cyclothymic Disorder, VASRD Code 9431, rated at 10 percent; that the
disability was 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; and that the disability was not received
in the line of duty as a direct result of armed conflict.

            b.  He was not involuntarily released from active duty on 2 Jun
98, but on that date, he was honorably discharged by reason of a physical
disability with entitlement to disability severance pay, rated at 10
percent under the provisions of AFI 36-3212.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency