RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-03414

            COUNSEL: GEORGE E DAY

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered  for  the  period    16
April 1997 to 15 April 1998 be expunged from his records; promotion to
Senior Master Sergeant (SMSgt) with a date of rank appropriate to  his
promotion sequence number in 1998 with back pay; award  of  disability
rating of 40% and any other equitable relief.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should not have been penalized for a mental health breakdown, which
was not his fault.  As a result, he was removed from the senior master
sergeant list after receiving a referral report.

The applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 6 July 1978 and was
progressively promoted to the grade of master sergeant.

A  review  of  the  applicant’s  available  military  medical  records
indicates  that  in  October  1996,  he  was  evaluated  for   chronic
depression and treatment commenced.  He was periodically evaluated for
this condition during the remainder of his career.

Applicant was tentatively selected  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
senior master sergeant by cycle 98E8 and was scheduled  for  promotion
on 1 May 1998.

The applicant’s commander advised him on ll March  1998  that  he  was
initiating an informal inquiry regarding his  fitness  to  assume  the
higher grade.

On 23 March 1998, the applicant was evaluated by an Informal  Physical
Evaluation Board (IPEB).  The  IPEB  found  no  unfitting  conditions,
which were compensable or ratable.  They found  two  conditions  which
can be unfitting but were not currently compensable or  ratable  which
were dysthymia, chronic, moderate and low back pain.   The  IPEB  also
found that the applicant had borderline personality traits which is  a
condition that is not separately  unfitting  and  not  compensable  or
ratable.  The IPEB recommend the applicant’s return to duty.  In their
opinion, the applicant’s dysthymia, which he had had since  childhood,
was not the cause of his current social and occupational  adaptability
impairment.  The IPEB found that his current problems were situational
and were brought on by the dissolution of his marriage.

On 15 April  1998,  he  received  the  contested  referral  EPR  which
cancelled the projected promotion.

EPR profile since 1988 reflects the following:

          PERIOD ENDING      OVERALL EVALUATION

           30 Dec 88                     9
           30 Dec 89                     9
            3 Jun 90                     5 (New System)
            6 Nov 90                     5
           28 Jan 92                     5
            6 Aug 92                     5
           15 Apr 93                     5
               15 Apr 94                5
           15 Apr 95                     5
               15 Apr 96                     5
           15 Apr 97                     5
       *   15 Apr 98                     2 Referral

     *  Contested report.

On 31 October 1998, the applicant was relieved from active duty and on
1 November 1998, was retired for length of service  in  the  grade  of
master sergeant.  He served a total of 20 years, 3 months, and 25 days
of active service.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicant's military 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 EVALUATION:

The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, also reviewed  this  application
and recommended approval.  This record is a true enigma.  On  the  one
hand, we have evidence of a superior enlisted member who rose  through
the ranks to qualify for and earn the rank of Senior Master  Sergeant,
compiling an enviable record enroute.  On the other hand,  we  see  an
individual who gives a history of an almost life-long  mood  disorder,
dysthymia, which is compounded by marital dissolution  and  depression
late in his career and over which his duty  performance  is  adversely
affected to a degree significant enough to warrant removing  him  from
his primary duties.  A lengthy  period  of  treatment  for  depression
ensued  which  required  on-going  treatment  with   medications   and
psychiatric counseling, up to and  including  the  time  he  underwent
disability evaluation, bringing his MDD to remission, but only because
of continued use of these treatment modalities.  The major  depressive
disorder (MDD), occasioned by the breakup of his 16-year marriage  and
loss of his 10-year son, was severe, and, it would seem, served  as  a
mechanism for his commander to effect his “voluntary” retirement  even
though he had earned the  higher  rank  that  was  denied.   It  seems
unconscionable that the IPEB failed to take this diagnosis of MDD into
consideration in their deliberation of this case, as  it  was  clearly
this diagnosis that was the basis for his work deterioration  and  its
resulting effects.  It would seem that the more proper  recommendation
for the IPEB would have been to find the  member  unfit  for  duty  by
reason of Major Depressive Disorder, VASRD  Code  9434  with  definite
social and industrial  impairment,  and  to  have  recommended  either
temporary, or more likely, permanent disability  retirement  with  30%
rating for this disorder.  In  addition,  the  commander’s  action  to
withhold a promotion while initiating  disability  evaluation  on  the
same day, which action subsequently returned  the  applicant  to  duty
anyway, seems to have been prematurely taken and inappropriate.

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

The Chief, Special Actions/BCMR Advisories  USAF  Physical  Disability
Division, AFPC/DPPD, reviewed this applicant’s request and recommended
denial.   The  service  member  has  not  submitted  any  material  or
documentation to show he was unfit due to a physical disability  under
the provisions of Chapter 61, Title  10,  USC,  at  the  time  of  his
voluntary retirement for length of service.

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

The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section, AFPC/DPPPEP, reviewed  this
application and suggests denial of the applicant’s request.   The  Air
Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written  when
it becomes a matter of record.  To effectively challenge an EPR, it is
necessary to hear from the members of the rating  chain-not  only  for
support, but also for clarification/explanation.  The applicant  filed
a previous appeal under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-2401,  Correcting
Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, 1 Aug 97, which was denied by
the Evaluation Reports  Appeal  Board  (ERAB).   The  member  did  not
provide a copy of the ERAB’s  decision  memorandum.   Therefore,  they
attached a copy to their advisory for the Board’s review. They  accept
the ERAB’s findings and offer the following for consideration.

As the applicant points out in his personal brief,  the  referral  EPR
does not mention the member’s medical  condition.   Instead,  the  EPR
reflects the applicant’s self-elimination from his primary duties  and
inability to handle the  stresses  associated  with  his  flight  line
duties.  Although the member believes the EPR to have been a result of
bias on the part of his commander, he did not provide the findings  of
an official investigation from the Inspector General (IG) or  Military
Equal Opportunity proving bias existed between the applicant  and  his
rater.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, also  reviewed  this
application and states that should the  Board  grant  the  applicant’s
request and remove the referral report or void  that  portion  of  the
report that makes it a referral and determines  the  applicant  should
not have been denied promotion on 1 May  98  because  of  his  medical
condition, he would have incurred  a  two  year  active  duty  service
commitment before his retirement date of 31 Oct 98.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the  applicant’s
counsel on 27 April 2001 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.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error  or  injustice  with  respect  to  the
contested report and the promotion  issue.   The  evidence  of  record
indicates that the commander  initiated  a  referral  report  and  the
applicant’s removal from the promotion list based  on  information  he
determined to be reliable.  It appears that the administrative actions
taken were properly accomplished.  The applicant has  failed  to  show
that  the  commander  abused  his  discretionary  authority  when   he
initiated these actions.  The applicant clearly  self-eliminated  from
his primary duties as a result of  the  stress  he  was  experiencing.
Therefore, in the opinion of the Board, the contested  report  was  an
accurate assessment of the applicant’s performance at the time it  was
prepared.  As a consequence, the resulting removal from the  promotion
list would appear to  be  an  appropriate  action.   In  view  of  the
foregoing, we find no  basis  upon  which  to  grant  the  applicant’s
requests regarding this issue.

4.    Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has been
presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or  injustice
warranting the applicant’s permanent retirement by reason of  physical
disability, with a rating of 30%.   The  evidence  of  record  clearly
shows a lengthy period of treatment for a  major  depressive  disorder
that required various treatment modalities.  We  note  that  the  BCMR
Medical Consultant states that the IPEB failed to take  the  diagnosis
of major depressive disorder into consideration during their review of
this case.  As a result, we believe sufficient doubt exists as to  the
accuracy of the IPEB determination.  Based on the evidence of  record,
it appears that  the  applicant  was  impaired  at  the  time  of  his
retirement from active duty. In view of the foregoing, we believe  the
benefit of the doubt should be resolved in favor of the applicant  and
recommend that his record be corrected to the extent indicated  below.
Applicant’s request  for  a  40%  disability  rating  was  considered;
however, in view of the Medical Consultant’s  recommendation,  we  are
persuaded that the applicant’s condition at  the  time  of  retirement
would have been rated at 30%.

5.    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 RECOMMENDS THAT:

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

      a.  On 31 October 1998, 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 Major Depressive Disorder, disability  rating  30%,  VASRD
Code 9434; that the disability is 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 received in  line  of  duty  as  a  direct
result of armed conflict.

      b.  He was not released from active duty on 31 October 1998  and
retired for length of service on 1 November 1998, but on that date his
name was placed on the Permanent Disability Retired List.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 18 July 2001, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

            Mr. David C. VanGasbeck, Panel Chair
            Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member
            Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member



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

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Dec 00, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Consultant, dated 9 Feb 01.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 15 Mar 01.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 26 Mar 01.
      Exhibit F. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 27 Mar 01.
      Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 27 Apr 01.






              DAVID C. VANGASBECK
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR 00-03414




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, be corrected to show that:

                 a.  On 31 October 1998, 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 Major Depressive Disorder, disability  rating
30%, VASRD Code 9434; that  the  disability  is  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 received in line  of  duty  as  a
direct result of armed conflict.

                 b.  He was  not  released  from  active  duty  on  31
October 1998 and retired for length of service on 1 November 1998, but
on that date his name was placed on the Permanent  Disability  Retired
List.








      JOE G. LINEBERGER
      Director
      Air Force Review Boards Agency