RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01195
            INDEX CODE:  100.03
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed.

2.  His narrative reason be changed from personality disorder to Bipolar  II
Disorder.

3.  He receive a hardship  discharge.   (By  amendment  at  Exhibit  J,  his
records be corrected to show he was retired because of  physical  disability
with a compensable rating of 30%.

4.  Recoupment of the unserved portion of  his  Selective  Enlistment  Bonus
(SEB) and educational loan be waived.

5.  He receive reimbursement for his personal medical expenses.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was a distinguished graduate from technical school and took pride in  his
service.  Upon his discharge he knew he was being treated  unjustly  but  he
did not know  who  to  ask  or  how  to  handle  the  situation.   He  feels
leadership should have handled his  situation  differently.   His  discharge
was too quick and unjust for a new airman.  He does not have  a  personality
disorder and will provide information to prove this.

In support of his request applicant provides a personal  statement,  summary
of events,  a  summary  of  medical  expenses  and  copies  of  his  medical
evaluations.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments,  is  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his four-year initial enlistment  in  the  Regular  Air
Force on 10 November 1998.  He was progressively promoted to  the  grade  of
airman first class, having assumed that grade effective and with a  date  of
rank  of  24 December  1998.   Records  show  that  the  applicant   was   a
Distinguished Graduate from the Security Forces Course.
On 7 July 1999, the 377th Medical Operations Squadron,  performed  a  mental
health assessment on the applicant after  a  mental  health  evaluation  was
performed by the Behavioral Health Clinic,  Kirtland  AFB,  NM,  during  the
period 15, 17 and 22 June 1999  in  which  it  was  indicated  that  he  had
demonstrated his  inability  to  handle  current  stressors.   The  examiner
indicated  the  mental  health  assessment  diagnosed  him  as   having   an
adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of  emotions  and  conduct.   The
recommendation to the commanding officer was that  the  applicant  would  be
unable to function effectively as a member of the Security Forces and  cross
training to another career field would be unlikely  to  produce  significant
changes in  his  symptoms.   The  recommendation  further  stated  that  the
applicant  did  not  desire  treatment,  but  rather   desired   separation;
therefore, administrative separation would  be  most  likely  to  serve  the
interests of the mission and the applicant.

On 2 August 1999, in accordance with AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, Chapter  5,
Section B, Involuntary -- Convenience of  the  Government,  paragraph  5.11,
Conditions that Interfere with  Military  Service,  specifically,  paragraph
5.11.1 Mental  Disorders,  the  commander  initiated  discharge  proceedings
against the applicant.  The applicant was advised  of  his  rights  in  this
matter.  After consulting military legal counsel, the applicant  waived  his
right to submit statements in his behalf.  On 16 August 1999, the  discharge
authority directed that the applicant  be  discharged  from  the  Air  Force
under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, Chapter  5,  Section  B,
Involuntary -- Convenience of the  Government,  Paragraph  5.11,  Conditions
that Interfere with Military Service, specifically paragraph 5.11.1,  Mental
Disorders, with character  of  service  as  honorable.   The  applicant  was
discharged on 17 August 1999 by reason  of  “Personality  Disorder”  with  a
Separation Code of “JFX” and a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code  of  “2C.”
He had served 9 months and 8 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  recommends  the  application  be   partially
granted.   The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  states  that  the  applicant  was
diagnosed with an adjustment disorder,  and  not  the  personality  disorder
that appears on the DD Form 214 an error that needs to  be  corrected.   The
BCMR Medical Consultant further  states  that  the  current  AFI  regulating
separations for mental health problems does not allow coding for other  than
“personality disorder,” an entirely different code sequence from  that  with
which the applicant was diagnosed.  The BCMR Medical Consultant states  that
in order to correct an injustice  of  improperly  labeling  the  applicant’s
disorder, the request for change of reason for discharge should be  granted;
however, not to  the  reason  he  requests.   The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant
recommends  the  separation  code  and  narrative  reason  be   changed   to
Secretarial Authority, and the SPD code to KFF.  However, the  BCMR  Medical
Consultant recommends the RE code of “2C” remain unchanged.

The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFMOA/SGZC recommends the application  be  denied.   SGZC  states  that  the
applicant left active duty 14 months before  being  diagnosed  with  bipolar
disorder and was not eligible for military healthcare after  Nov  99.   SGZC
states  that  the  Jul  99  mental  health  evaluation  concluded  that  the
applicant did not suffer from a severe  mental  disorder  (such  as  bipolar
disorder) that rendered him  unfit  for  duty  from  a  medical  standpoint;
therefore, his case was not presented to a medical evaluation board.

The SGZC evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be  denied.   DPPRS  states  that  the
applicant did not  submit  any  new  evidence  or  identify  any  errors  or
injustices that occurred  in  the  discharge  processing.   Based  upon  the
documentation in file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural  and
substantive requirements  of  the  discharge  regulation.   However,  DPPRSP
states that they concur with the BCMR  Medical  Consultant’s  recommendation
that the applicant’s separation code and narrative reason for separation  be
changed to “JFF – Secretarial Authority.”

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/DPPAE reviewed the RE code  of  2C  and  states  that  it  is  correct.
However, states DPPAE, should the Board recommend changing  the  applicant's
separation code to JFF “Secretarial Authority” the unearned portion  of  his
Enlistment Bonus will not be recouped.

The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit F.

AFPC/DPPAT  recommends  the  application  be  denied.   DPPAT  states   that
according to a Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA)  representative  at  the
Decatur GA regional office, the applicant was certified  for  enrollment  at
Delta State for the Fall 99, Spring 00, and Summer  00  terms  but  did  not
attend the Summer term.  DPPAT states that  the  DVA  initiated  overpayment
action when they learned that he did not attend the  Summer  term;  however,
applicant confirmed through  an  automated  system  on  10 Jul  00  that  he
attended the term  in  question.   DPPAT  states  that  it  would  not  seem
appropriate for one federal agency to waiver repayment of  a  debt  owed  to
another federal agency and since the overpayment letter informed him of  his
right to appeal the overpayment he should  exercise  his  appeal  rights  by
providing the DVA with proof he attended school during the Summer 00 term.
(See Exhibit G.)
DFAS-POCC/DE recommends the application be denied.   DFAS-POCC  states  that
the applicant enlisted on 10 Nov 98 under the SEB for a term of 6 years  for
a bonus of $4,000.00 and received payment on 19 May  99.   DFAS-POCC  states
that the applicant was separated on 7 Aug 99 with an SPD code of  JFX  which
requires recoupment of any unearned portion of enlistment bonuses  when  the
member voluntarily or because of misconduct does not complete  the  term  of
enlistment for which the member was paid.  Currently, states DFAS-POCC,  the
debt balance of $2,818.33 was transferred to the Department of Defense  Debt
Management system after his separation.  DFAS-POCC further states  that  the
applicant filed a final travel claim with the separation  section,  Kirtland
AFB, but has not received a response.  DFAS-POCC recommends that he  contact
Kirtland AFB for assistance and completion of his final travel claim.

The DFAS-POCC/DE evaluation is at Exhibit H.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant advises that he partially agrees  with  the  advisories  provided;
however, he believes he should qualify  for  a  physical  disability  at  or
above 30 percent and receive reimbursement for his medical treatment.  In  a
letter dated 30 May 02, the applicant advises that he accepts the  SPD  code
of JFF “Secretarial Authority” and requests all debt relief.

The applicant’s responses are at Exhibit J.

_________________________________________________________________

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  provided  to  demonstrate  the
existence of injustice that  would  warrant  a  change  in  the  reason  for
separation.  After reviewing his submission and the evidence of  record,  we
are persuaded that some relief is warranted.  We note  that  the  separation
action taken against the applicant was in  accordance  with  the  applicable
instruction.  However, after reviewing the evidence of record and  the  BCMR
Medical Consultant’s recommendation, it is our opinion  that  the  narrative
reason improperly labels the reason for his discharge.   It  appears  to  us
that the current reason could be misconstrued to infer that  his  separation
was due to actual “personality disorders”  instead  of  a  maladjustment  to
military  service.   Therefore,  in  order  to  correct  an   injustice   of
improperly labeling the  applicant,  his  narrative  reason  for  separation
should  be  corrected  to  accurately  reflect  the  circumstances  of   his
separation.  We have noted the applicant’s  request  for  a  waiver  of  the
recoupment for the unserved portion of his Selective Enlistment  Bonus.   By
virtue of granting correction of  his  separation  code,  he  will  also  be
afforded relief from the recoupment action.  In view of  the  foregoing,  we
recommend that his record be corrected as indicated below.

4.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice with respect  to  the  applicant’s  requests
that his  records  be  corrected  to  show  the  narrative  reason  for  his
separation be changed to “Bipolar II Disorder,” he was  retired  because  of
physical disability or discharged for  hardship  reasons,  his  RE  code  be
changed, and he be remibursed for his  personal  medical  expenses  and  for
education expenses.

            a.  While not specifically stated by the applicant,  it  appears
he  believes  Air  Force  mental  health  care  providers  misdiagnosed  his
condition  as  an  adjustment  disorder  and  that,  based  on  a  condition
diagnosed subsequent to his separation, he should have been retired  because
of physical disability.  The primary question which must be answered is,  at
the time of his separation, did the applicant have  a  condition  which  was
unfitting within the meaning of the governing  directive,  which  implements
the law.  The BCMR Medical consultant has stated that  the  answer  to  this
question is “no.”  Having reviewed the evidence  provided  and  deliberating
over this matter, we are inclined to agree.

            b.  It should be noted that an  individual’s  condition  at  the
time of separation or final disposition governs whether or  not  the  member
is referred  for  disability  processing.   In  order  to  be  referred  for
disability processing, the member’s fitness for worldwide duty must be  seen
as questionable.  Decisions of this nature are  based  on  accepted  medical
principles.  With the benefit of hindsight, we have been presented with  the
applicant’s assertion that his condition was misdiagnosed as  an  adjustment
disorder when he, in fact, had a condition which could have been  unfitting.
 We are aware that it is a generally accepted  principle  that  there  is  a
progression  to  conditions  such  as  the  applicant’s,  i.e.,  before  the
condition manifests to a degree of severity by which a  firm  diagnosis  may
be made, some symptoms occur which,  in  and  of  themselves,  do  not  lead
medical authorities to question the  individual’s  ability  to  function  in
society.   Therefore,  while  in  retrospect,  it  may  be  determined  that
symptoms of  the  condition  were  evident  before  the  disease  reaches  a
severity which would allow for a definitive diagnosis, the exact nature  and
seriousness of the disease cannot  be  diagnosed  with  any  certainty.   It
appears to us that this was the situation here.

            c.  According to the applicant, in October 2000, some 14  months
following his  separation,  he  underwent  a  mental  health  evaluation  by
civilian mental health care providers, and his condition was diagnosed as  a
psychosis, referred to as a “bipolar illness” in the evidence  provided  for
our review.  We note that in July 1999, approximately  8  months  after  his
entry on active duty, based  on  his  stated  inability  to  cope  with  the
vicissitudes of military life and his desire to  separate,  he  underwent  a
psychological examination.  At that  time,  his  condition  was  seen  as  a
matter of his inability to  adjust  to  the  military  environment  and  his
administrative separation was recommended as being in the best interests  of
the Air Force and the individual concerned.  Notwithstanding the  subsequent
course of the applicant’s illness, we have  seen  nothing  in  the  evidence
provided which would  lead  us  to  believe  that  the  1999  diagnosis  was
erroneous  or,  based  on  accepted  medical  principles,  contrary  to  the
symptoms the applicant exhibited at  that  time.   In  the  absence  of  any
indication in the record which would have caused the  applicant’s  superiors
or health care providers to believe further mental health  assessments  were
warranted prior to his separation, we are not persuaded that the  Air  Force
erred in this matter.

            d.  In view of the above, we  are  unable  to  conclude  on  the
basis of the evidence provided that the applicant was unfit at the  time  of
his separation and that the evaluation of his case  by  his  commanders  and
military medical authorities was improper or not based on  accepted  medical
principles.   We  are  not  unsympathetic  to  the  applicant’s   situation.
However, after reviewing all the evidence provided, we agree with  the  BCMR
Medical  Consultant  and  believe  that  the  applicant’s  condition  became
unfitting  after  his  separation  and  that,  as  the  law   requires,   is
compensable through the DVA based on a determination  by  that  agency  that
service-connection is appropriate.  Likewise, there is no indication in  the
evidence  provided  that  the  applicant’s  situation  met  the   regulatory
criteria for a hardship discharge.  Accordingly,  the  applicant’s  requests
that his records be corrected to show he was retired because  of  disability
or  that  he  was  discharged  for  hardship  reasons  are   not   favorably
considered.  Likewise, since we have determined favorable  consideration  of
the applicant’s request for disability retirement is  not  appropriate,  his
request for reimbursement  for  his  medical  expenses  incurred  after  his
separation is not possible.

            e.  Finally, we have  noted  the  applicant’s  request  that  he
receive a waiver for his educational loan.  With respect to this issue,  the
applicant is advised that this matter is not  within  the  purview  of  this
Board since it is not possible for one federal agency to waive  or  consider
a waiver of a  debt  owed  to  another  federal  agency.   As  suggested  by
AFPC/DPPAT,  the  applicant  should  exercise  his  right  to   appeal   the
overpayment through the Department of Veteran Affairs.

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 on 17 August 1999, he  was  separated
under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 1.2  (Secretarial  Authority)
with a separation code of JFF.

_________________________________________________________________


The following members  of  the  Board  considered  this  application  AFBCMR
Docket Number 01-01195 in Executive Session  on  26  June  2002,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Panel Chair
      Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member
      Mrs. Carolyn J. Watkins, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Apr 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 24 May 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 19 Jun 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 5 Oct 01.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAT, dated 18 Mar 02.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFMOA/SGZC, dated 21 Dec 01.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, DFAS-POCC/DE, undated.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Oct 01 and 5 Apr 02.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, Applicant, dated 30 May 02.






                                   PHILIP SHEUERMAN
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR 01-01195




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 on 17
August 1999, he was separated under the provisions of AFI 36-3208,
paragraph 1.2 (Secretarial Authority) with a separation code of JFF.






  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

        Air Force Review Boards Agency