RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01740
            INDEX CODE:  100.03, 100.06
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from 2Q to 3K.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has never had an anxiety disorder before  or  after  his  discharge
from the Air Force and the disorder with mild  social  and  industrial
impairment, VASRD  code  9413,  anxiety  disorder  is  incorrect.   He
acknowledges that he had marital problems  and  was  going  through  a
divorce when he was on active duty, but  the  problems  were  resolved
following his divorce.  He  also  states  that  he  has  passed  other
physicals and psychological exams without any problems and no presence
of any disorders.  The applicant also states that the first Board held
on 6 July 2001 recommended that he be  allowed  to  apply  for  active
duty, and reexamined within  military  channels  to  determine  if  he
currently meets enlistment standards.  He also declares that the  IPEB
states  that  “As  for  his  panic/anxiety  disorders  there  is   not
sufficient documentation to conclude that they were unfitting.   Based
on conflicting medical opinions,  it  was  determined  that  there  is
nothing to our knowledge that precludes the veteran from seeking entry
on active duty via normal channels as a prior service  enlistee.”   He
states that none of his  physical  conditions  predated  his  military
service.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy of  the  BCMR
Medical Consultant’s letter dated 6  July  2001,  a  copy  of  the  HQ
AFPC/DPD evaluation dated 24 July 2001 and a personal statement  dated
22 May 2002.  Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic  on
14 January 1998 for a term of 4 years.  He was honorably discharged on
9 June 2000 under the provisions of AFI 36-3212 (Disability, Severance
Pay) for a diagnosis of asthma.  He served 2 years, 4 months,  and  26
days of active duty service as a Fuels Journeyman.

The applicant petitioned the  BCMR  in  2001  for  correction  of  his
military record to remove his diagnosis of  asthma.   On  27 September
2001, the Board recommended that  the  reason  for  his  discharge  be
changed from asthma to anxiety disorder based on the  opinion  of  the
BCMR  Medical  Consultant  that  a  diagnosis  of   asthma   was   not
substantiated and that the applicant’s disabling symptoms were due  to
an anxiety disorder manifesting as panic attacks. The  Board  did  not
recommend that he be reinstated in the Air Force.

A copy of the Record of Proceeding, with attachments, is  attached  at
Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  reviewed   applicant’s   request   and
recommends denial.   The  applicant  was  disability  discharged  with
severance pay in June 2000 due to a diagnosis of asthma.  Following  a
discharge, that  diagnosis  was  called  into  question  based  on  an
evaluation that included a  negative  methacholine  bronchoprovocation
test performed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).  Based  on
this the DVA has denied service connected compensation for asthma  and
the applicant applied for correction of his military records to remove
asthma as his reason for discharge and  allow  him  to  reenlist.   In
September 2001, the AFBCMR granted  partial  correction  changing  his
reason for discharge from asthma to anxiety, but did  not  change  his
reenlistment  code.   Evidence  in  the  service  medical  record   is
unequivocal with regard to the presence of  symptoms  of  anxiety  and
panic attacks.  Various diagnoses were applied to his  symptoms  while
he  was  on  active  duty  and  included  Adjustment  Disorder,  Panic
Disorder,   and   Anxiety   Disorder.    Following   discharge,    DVA
psychiatrists have  settled  on  a  diagnosis  of  Panic  Disorder  (a
specific form of anxiety disorder)  with  agoraphobia  (anxiety  about
being inplaces or situations from which escape might be  difficult  or
embarrassing, or in which help may not be available in  the  event  of
having an unexpected or situation ally related panic attack or  panic-
like symptoms).  The most recent DVA evaluation states  his  condition
is in remission, but still applies a severity rating of  mild  to  his
condition rather than that associated with remission, presumably since
he was still on medication for the condition.  Thus there  appears  to
be no doubt the applicant has had an anxiety disorder  as  defined  in
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder.  In addition
to the anxiety disorder, the applicant was diagnosed  with  Adjustment
Disorder with Depressed/anxious mood, a diagnosis that  is  considered
potentially  unsuiting   for   military   service   and   subject   to
administrative discharge by the individuals commander if the condition
interferes  with  duty  or  the  individuals  mental  health  provider
determines that the condition is severe enough to  be  unsuiting.   In
this instance, the applicant continued to perform  his  duty  and  his
adjustment disorder was not considered to be of the severity requiring
administrative discharge.  The  issue  then  is  whether  or  not  his
anxiety disorder would have been disqualifying for continued  military
service,  and  whether  his  panic  disorder   with   agoraphobia   is
disqualifying for reenlistment now.  AFI 48-123 Attachment 2,  Medical
Standards for Continued Military Service  states  that  Psychoneurosis
(includes anxiety disorders) are disqualifying for  continued  service
if symptoms are persistent or recurrent and require hospitalization or
the need for continuing psychiatric support.  AFI 48-123 Attachment 3,
Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment,  and  Induction  states
that anxiety disorders that result in any or all of:  hospitalization,
prolonged care by a physician or  other  professional  (not  otherwise
specified), loss of time from normal pursuits  for  repeated  periods,
even if for brief duration, or of  a  repeated  nature  that  impaired
social, school, or other work efficiency.  Further, a  history  of  an
episode of such disorder within the  preceding  12  months  which  was
sufficiently severe to require professional attention or absence  from
work or school for more than a brief period (maximum of 7 days).   The
fact the applicant remains on  medication  for  his  anxiety  disorder
(panic  disorder  with  agoraphobia)  is  evidence  of  the  need  for
continuing psychiatric support, and in the opinion  of  the  reviewer,
renders the applicant ineligible  for  reenlistment.   To  attempt  to
retrospectively  predict  the  course  of  events  had  he  not   been
discharged due to a diagnosis of asthma is difficult and  speculative.
Once his marital issues had  resolved,  would,  as  he  contends,  his
symptoms improved to the point  that  continuing  psychiatric  support
(i.e. medication and counseling) would no longer have been  necessary?
Were that the case, retention on active duty would have  been  likely.
The fact that he remained on medication following  discharge  suggests
that continuing treatment would have been necessary, probably  leading
to a medical evaluation board and disability discharge.   At  present,
his condition disqualifies him from enlistment.  In addition, evidence
in the record shows a history of symptoms of  anxiety  and  panic  for
many years consistent with a chronic, recurring problem.

The BCMR Medical Consultant concludes that the prior  AFBCMR  decision
to change the applicant’s records to  show  disability  discharge  for
anxiety  disorder  without  changing   his   reenlistment   code   was
appropriate. The Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPAE indicates that based on the review of his case file, his RE
code 2Q, “Personnel medically retired or discharged” is correct.   The
DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________



APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
22 Nov 02, for review and comment within 30 days.  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  an  error  or  injustice  to  warrant  changing  the
applicant’s reenlistment eligibility (RE) code.  We took notice of the
applicant’s complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case,
however; we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary responsibility and the BMCR medical  consultant  and
adopt their rationale  as  the  basis  for  our  conclusion  that  the
applicant  has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or   injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to  the  contrary,  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 Docket  Number  02-01740
in Executive Session on 12 February 2003, under the provisions of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Panel Chair
                 Mr. William H. Anderson, Member
                 Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 May 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Record of Proceedings, dated 27 sep 01,w/atchs.
      Exhibit D. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 5 Sep 02.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 13 Oct 02.
      Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Nov 02.





      ALBERT F. LOWAS, JR.
      Panel Chair