RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01553
            INDEX CODE:  108.00

            COUNSEL:  DISABLED AMERICAN
                          VETERANS

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect that he  was  permanently  retired
with a 30 percent disability rating.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He does not have a personality disorder.  He has been diagnosed with a
major depressive disorder and has been granted a 70 percent disability
rating by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).

In support of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  copies  of  his
separation document and DVA rating decision.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 22 Jun 95.

On 24 Sep 01, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant that he
was recommending his discharge from the Air Force  for  a  personality
disorder.  The reason for the proposed action was that on or about  24
Aug 01, the applicant was examined by a mental health professional and
diagnosed with a depressive disorder, schizoid  personality  disorder,
and occupational problems.

The applicant was advised of his rights in  the  matter  and  that  an
honorable discharge would be recommended.

In a legal review of the discharge case file, dated  27  Sep  01,  the
Assistant Staff Judge Advocate found the file was  legally  sufficient
and recommended that the applicant be  discharged  with  an  honorable
discharge.

On 1 Oct 01, the discharge authority approved the discharge action and
directed that the applicant be furnished an honorable discharge.

On 3 Oct 01, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of  AFI
36-3208 (Personality Disorder) and furnished an  honorable  discharge.
He had served 6 years, 3 months, and 12 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, reviewed  this  application  and
noted that the applicant  developed  symptoms  of  depression  in  the
setting of an underlying schizoid personality disorder.   Because  his
symptoms were continuing to interfere with his duty performance he was
referred for a command-directed mental health  evaluation.   Based  on
the evaluating psychiatrist’s opinion that  the  personality  disorder
formed the foundation for the applicant’s difficulties,  he  underwent
administrative separation for the unsuiting condition.

According  to  the  Medical  Consultant,  personality  disorders   are
lifelong patterns of maladjustment  in  the  individual’s  personality
structure which are not medically disqualifying or unfitting  but  may
render the individual unsuitable for further military service and  may
be cause for administrative action by the individual’s unit commander.
 The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental  Disorders  (DSM  IV)
defines schizoid personality disorder as characterized by a  pervasive
pattern of detachment from social relationships and a restricted range
of expression of emotions  in  interpersonal  settings.   The  pattern
begins by early adulthood and is present in  a  variety  of  contexts.
The individual is a “loner” who lacks a desire for  intimacy,  and  is
indifferent to opportunities to develop  close  relationships.   These
individuals have no close friends  or  confidants  except  possibly  a
first degree relative.   Occupational  functioning  may  be  impaired,
particularly if interpersonal involvement  is  required.   Individuals
with this disorder may do well when their work enables them to work in
relative isolation.  In response  to  stress,  individuals  with  this
disorder  may  experience  brief  psychotic  episodes,  and  sometimes
develop schizophrenia or major depressive disorder.   Individuals  who
are loners may display personality traits  that  might  be  considered
schizoid.  Only when  these  traits  are  inflexible  and  maladaptive
causing significant functional impairment or  subjective  distress  do
they constitute a schizoid personality disorder.

The Medical Consultant indicated that the presence in this case  of  a
diagnosis of  depression  (and  not  adjustment  disorder),  made  the
possibility of disability processing an option at the time.  It is not
unusual that members with depression undergo disability processing who
also have a personality disorder diagnosis.  The  Physical  Evaluation
Board takes into consideration  the  relative  contribution  that  the
unsuiting personality disorder makes to the disability  based  on  the
recommendation of the psychiatrist, and reduces the disability  rating
for the unfitting diagnosis.  In this  case,  the  applicant  was  not
afforded consideration in the disability system since, in the  opinion
of the psychiatrist who performed the command-directed evaluation, the
severity of his depression after treatment was not of a degree  to  be
considered disqualifying for continued duty.  Instead, the  underlying
personality disorder became  the  predominant  problem  rendering  the
applicant unsuitable for military service.   Had  the  applicant  been
evaluated in the disability system, the possible outcome would  depend
on  whether  the  Physical  Evaluation  Board  (PEB)   concluded   his
depression made him unfit  based  on  the  psychiatrist’s  assessment.
Assuming that the psychiatrist’s assessment of  the  severity  of  his
depressive disorder as mild and not unfitting  was  presented  to  the
PEB, the board would have likely  determined  the  applicant  fit  and
returned him to duty  for  administrative  action  for  his  unsuiting
personality disorder.  At most, the board would have  determined  that
his depression  was  unfitting  at  the  30  percent  level  based  on
documentation prior to the command-directed psychiatry evaluation that
his  severity  was  definite,  but  the  presence  of  the  underlying
personality disorder would result in a reduction of the  rating  to  a
final rating of 10 percent and a recommendation  for  separation  with
severance pay.  A disability retirement at the 30 percent level  would
not be an outcome based on the evidence in  the  medical  record.   An
alternative outcome from the PEB may be considering the depression  an
existing prior to  service  condition  based  on  the  fact  that  the
personality disorder is a lifelong condition  that  existed  prior  to
service and the applicant’s quoted  statements  of  five  episodes  of
depression during his  lifetime,  suggesting  that  he  had  bouts  of
depression prior to service.

In the Medical Consultant’s view, the action and disposition  in  this
case were technically proper and equitable reflecting compliance  with
Air Force directives that implement the law.  While it was clear  that
there was no doubt that his unsuiting personality disorder underpinned
the depression he experienced  while  on  active  duty,  there  was  a
difference of opinion regarding the severity of his depression at  the
time of discharge and he was not afforded disability  evaluation.   In
the  opinion  of  the  medical  consultant,  the  highest   disability
compensation that the applicant may have received was separation  with
severance pay  at  10  percent  and  not  disability  retirement.   In
practical terms, providing the applicant a separation with 10  percent
severance pay offers no increase  over  the  present  benefits  he  is
receiving from the DVA as disability compensation  received  from  the
Air Force will be offset by deduction from his DVA compensation.

The Medical Consultant recommended that  the  applicant’s  records  be
reviewed by the Disability Branch  at the Air Force  Personnel  Center
(AFPC) for an advisory opinion regarding how this case would have been
rated it had he been given a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).

A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is  at  Exhibit
C.

AFPC/DPPD recommended denial.  They noted that the applicant’s records
show he was never referred through the military disability  evaluation
system (DES) under the provisions of AFI 36-3212.  The purpose of  the
DES is to maintain a fit and vital force  by  separating  or  retiring
members who are unable to perform the duties of their  office,  grade,
rank or rating.  Those members who are separated or retired by  reason
of a physical  disability  may  be  eligible  for  certain  disability
compensation.  The decision to process a member through  the  military
DES is determined by an MEB when he or  she  is  determined  medically
disqualified for continued military service.  The decision to  conduct
an MEB is made by the medical treatment facility providing health care
to the member.

AFPC/DPPD also noted that  the  applicant’s  administrative  discharge
package included a mental health evaluation that diagnosed him with  a
schizoid personality disorder and depressive disorder.  His depressive
disorder was considered mild and not  of  a  severity  that  would  be
medically disqualifying for continued military service.

In accordance with the Medical Consultant’s recommendation,  AFPC/DPPD
indicated that the case file was forwarded to  the  Informal  Physical
Evaluation Board (IPEB) for their review for an opinion  on  how  this
case would have been rated.  The Board concluded that the  applicant’s
schizoid personality disorder was the main disqualifying condition for
his discharge and  not  his  mild  depressive  disorder.   The  IPEB’s
consensus was that his involuntary administrative  discharge  appeared
appropriate based on his medical status at the  time.   Based  on  the
information that was reviewed, the board determined  they  that  would
have considered the veteran’s mild depressive  disorder;  however,  it
was also agreed upon that the condition  would  not  have  been  found
unfitting or ratable at the time of his release from  active  duty  as
dictated in his separation mental health  evaluation.   Department  of
Defense  Instruction  (DODI)  1332.38  states  that  certain   medical
conditions and defects of a developmental  nature  designated  by  the
Secretary of Defense do not make up a physical disability and are  not
ratable in the absence of an underlying  ratable  causative  disorder.
Personality disorders are considered unsuiting rather  than  unfitting
and do not constitute a physical disability under  the  provisions  of
military disability laws and policy and are not ratable or compensable
under Chapter 61, Title 10, United States Code (USC).

In AFPC/DPPPD’s view, it is essential that  the  applicant  understand
the difference between Titles 10 and 38 of the USC. The Air Force  and
DVA disability systems operate under separate  laws.   Under  the  Air
Force  system  (Title  10,  USC),  Physical  Evaluation  Boards   must
determine if a member’s  medical  condition  renders  them  unfit  for
continued military service.  The fact that a person may have a medical
condition while on active duty does not automatically  mean  that  the
condition  is  unfitting  for  continued  military  service.   To   be
unfitting, the service member’s medical condition must be such that it
by itself precludes them from fulfilling their  military  duties.   If
the board renders a finding of unfit,  the  law  provides  appropriate
compensation due to the premature termination of his or  her  military
career.  Further, it must be noted that under military disability laws
and policy, USAF disability boards can only rate unfitting  conditions
based upon the individual’s medical status at the time of his  or  her
evaluation; in essence a snapshot of their  condition  at  that  time.
The DVA, however, is chartered to provide continual  medical  care  to
the veteran for service-connected medical conditions once they  depart
active service.  Under Title 38, USC, the DVA may increase or decrease
an individual’s disability rating based  on  the  seriousness  of  the
medical condition throughout his or her life span.

According to AFPC/DPPD, a thorough review of the case file revealed no
errors  or   irregularities   during   the   applicant’s   involuntary
administrative discharge that would justify a change to  his  military
records.  The medical aspects of this case are fully explained by  the
Medical Consultant and they agree with his advisory.  Furthermore, the
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, United States Code (USC), at the time of his  administrative
discharge.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant  on  6
Sep 02 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________
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  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant's  complete
submission was thoroughly  reviewed  and  his  contentions  were  duly
noted.  However, we do not find  the  applicant’s  assertions  or  the
documentation  presented  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override   the
rationale provided by the Air Force offices of primary  responsibility
(OPR).  The  evidence  of  record  reflects  that  the  applicant  was
involuntarily discharged for  a  personality  disorder.   We  find  no
evidence which would  lead  us  to  believe  that  his  administrative
discharge was improper or contrary to the  governing  directive  under
which it was effected.  The applicant contends that he did not have  a
personality disorder and believes that he should have  been  medically
retired based on his depressive disorder, for which is currently being
compensated for by the DVA.  Although his diagnosis  of  a  depressive
disorder while  on  active  duty  was  noted,  no  evidence  has  been
presented which has shown to our satisfaction that this condition  was
medically disqualifying for continued military service.  Therefore, in
the absence of sufficient evidence that  the  information  used  as  a
basis for his discharge was erroneous, or that  at  the  time  of  his
involuntary separation, the applicant was unfit, rather than unsuited,
to perform the duties of his rank and office within the meaning of the
law, we agree with the recommendations of the  OPRs  and  adopt  their
rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has  failed
to sustain his burden of establishing that he has suffered  either  an
error or an injustice.  Accordingly, we find no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
01553 in Executive Session on 15 Oct 02, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Ms. Marcia Jane Bachman, Member
      Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Mar 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 15 Jul 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 29 Aug 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Sep 02.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair