RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01334
            INDEX CODE:  108.00
            COUNSEL:  Mr. William E. Cassara

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be changed to reflect  that  he  was  discharged  for  medical
reasons; or  in  the  alternative,  his  case  be  referred  to  a  Physical
Evaluation Board (PEB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His tenure in the Air Force was marked by a number of episodes  that  should
have keyed his  supervisors  into  knowing  that  he  suffered  from  severe
depression and an inability to cope.  The Air Force had indications that  he
suffered from  a  learning  disability  as  early  as  June  1984.   He  was
counseled for  failing  to  satisfactorily  complete  a  basic  reading  and
comprehension test.  A review of the counseling confirms that he was  having
significant difficulty completing the exam and he was required to enroll  in
remedial reading and comprehension exams in order to finish the tests.   His
difficulties can be traced back to a traumatic  incident  which  pushed  him
into a state of psychiatric depression.  In 1983  he  was  notified  of  the
death of his father.  He immediately fell into a state of despondency.   His
reaction to the news appears to be significantly greater than the norm.   He
went into a phase of uncontrollable crying and spent several  months  nearly
unable to speak  or  perform  his  duties.   He  sought  treatment  for  his
depression but did not receive it.  He was simply told to tough it  out  and
that he would get over it.  Had he received proper medical treatment at  the
time, significant future problems may have been avoided.  More  importantly,
he should have been medically discharged as a  result  of  this  significant
mental illness.

In the years that followed his  discharge  he  suffered  from  a  number  of
medical problems, all of which can be traced to his medical condition  while
on active duty.  He has been treated for  sleep  apnea,  narcolepsy,  and  a
sudden onset of weight gain.  The diagnosis of  hypersomnia  required  heavy
medication in order to get him through the workday.  He was evaluated  by  a
psychiatrist who diagnosed his  condition  as  Major  Depression,  Recurrent
type,  Deferred,  Narcolepsy/Sleep  Apnea.   The  psychiatrist  specifically
links his current psychiatric problems with  his  military  service  stating
that his diagnosis was precipitated by the event of his father's  death  and
that he did not receive the appropriate psychiatric treatment at  the  time.
It was further noted that he never  saw  a  psychiatrist  while  he  was  on
active duty and that there was no medical intervention.   The  link  between
his current problems and his military service seems clear.  Had he  received
treatment at the time of his father's death his current problems could  have
been  avoided.   In  the  military  environment,  service  members  may   be
reluctant to seek mental health counseling.   However,  in  the  applicant's
case, the treatment was never  offered.   In  spite  of  the  warning  signs
around them, his supervisors failed to ensure that he  received  appropriate
medical care for his very obvious depression.

In support of his request, applicant provided his counsel's  brief,  letters
from  his  psychiatrists,  documents  associated  with  his  Department   of
Veterans'  Affairs  (DVA)  disability  claim,  a  Certificate  of  Training,
documents associated with  his  separation  processing,  his  DD  Form  214,
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; and his DD  Form  215,
Correction to DD Form 214.  His complete submission,  with  attachments,  is
at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  on  19  Apr  83  and  was
progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of  sergeant.   He  served   as   a
Telecommunications Systems Maintenance Specialist until 15 Apr 87, at  which
time he was honorably released from active  duty  under  the  Early  Release
program.  He served 3  years,  11  months,  and  27  days  on  active  duty.
Subsequent to his active duty service, he served in the Air  National  Guard
(ANG) as an Electronic  Cryptographic  Communications  Equipment  Specialist
from 19 Apr 88 to 18 Apr 91.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The consultant  states  that
his service records contain  numerous  entries  for  a  variety  of  medical
problems but none for any complaints of depressed mood,  including  in  1983
when his father died.  There is no evidence of sleep complaints or  learning
difficulties noted in the service  medical  records.   He  did  not  have  a
separation physical  examination.   He  requested  an  examination  but  was
separated before  the  exam  was  accomplished.   However,  he  underwent  a
complete examination in March 1988 when he enlisted in the ANG.  On  the  SF
93, Report of Medical Examination, dated 23 Mar 88,  the  applicant  reports
his present health as  "good."   He  checked  "No"  to  questions  regarding
depression,  sleep  and  learning  problems   including   frequent   trouble
sleeping, depression or excessive worry, nervous trouble of any  sort,  loss
of memory or amnesia, attempted suicide, or any other somatic symptoms  that
sometimes accompany depression or anxiety.  A  DVA  rating  decision  denied
his claim for service connection for depression, narcolepsy and sleep  apnea
concluding that  these  conditions  neither  occurred  nor  were  caused  by
service.

There is no evidence that he exhibited any  symptoms  of  depression,  sleep
disorder of pathologic learning difficulties while on active duty or in  the
ANG.  None of the conditions that he was  treated  for  were  unfitting  for
service.  There is no evidence that he was denied care  by  his  supervisors
or medical  personnel  or  that  there  were  symptoms,  which  should  have
suggested that  he  required  referral  for  evaluation.   The  evidence  he
provided from his civilian  providers  is  dated  several  years  after  his
discharge.  The learning disability he contends he  has  was  not  unfitting
for service and evidence shows that he was  able  to  successfully  complete
rigorous technical training both wile on active duty and in  the  ANG.   The
Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial.  DPPD states that his medical records  show  he
was treated for various conditions while on active duty, however, none  were
identified to be serious or life  threatening  enough  to  require  referral
through  the  Air  Force  military  disability   evaluation   system.    All
indications show that he was reasonably capable of performing  his  military
duties as an Electronic Cryptographic  Communications  Equipment  Specialist
and as a Telecommunications Systems Maintenance  Specialist.   There  is  no
indication  that  his  current  conditions  occurred  during  his   military
service.  He has not provided evidence to show an injustice occurred at  the
time of his voluntary release from active duty.  The DPPD evaluation  is  at
Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel states that the focus of the  applicant's  contention  is  that  his
current diagnosis of severe depression is directly linked  to  his  military
service and the Air Force's failure to properly  treat  him  for  depression
after his father's death.  His psychiatrist unequivocally  states  that  his
current medical condition was due to the Air  Force's  failure  to  properly
treat him at the time of his father's death.  DPPD's  statement  that  there
is no evidence that his depression was so severe as to warrant  intervention
while the applicant was on active duty, is precisely the point.   His  claim
is that he should have been treated while  on  active  duty.   His  complete
submission is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however,  we  do  not
find his uncorroborated assertions sufficiently persuasive to  override  the
rationale provided by the Air Force.  We see no evidence, which  would  lead
us to believe that at the time  of  his  separation,  a  physical  condition
existed that would have disqualified him from  worldwide  military  service.
Therefore,  we  see  no  reason  why  he  would  have  been   eligible   for
consideration in the  disability  evaluation  system.   We  agree  with  the
opinions  and  recommendation  of  the  Air   Force   offices   of   primary
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the  basis  for  our  conclusion
that the applicant has not been the victim of an  error  or  injustice.   In
the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary,  we  find  no  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  Docket  Number  02-01334  in
Executive Session on 26 Mar 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
      Mrs. Carolyn J. Watkins-Taylor, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 May 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 2 Jan 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 29 Jan 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Feb 03.
    Exhibit F.  Counsel's Letter, not dated




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair