RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-02353
            INDEX CODE:  115.00

            COUNSEL:  WILLIAM E. CASSARA

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The finding of the Flying Evaluation Board (FEB) be reversed and he be
returned to aviation service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The board  proceedings  were  erroneous,  an  abuse  of  discretionary
authority, contrary to Air Force policies and regulations, and without
substantial support in law.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a counsel’s brief.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
captain, having been promoted to that grade on 28 May 01.   His  Total
Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 28 May 97.

By Aeronautical  Order  ---,  dated  16  Jul  01,  the  applicant  was
permanently disqualified for aviation service effective 19 Jun 00, but
retained the privilege of wearing the pilot aviation service badge.

The remaining  relevant  facts  pertaining  to  this  application  are
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate  offices  of  the
Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AETC/DO recommended  denial  noting  that  the  applicant  began  F-16
training on 27 Jul 99. Prior to his initial F-16 flight,  he  and  his
girlfriend broke up.  He became distracted, felt  his  mind  and  body
were not 100 percent, and believed he was unprepared to fly. Afraid to
tell anyone about the problems, and feeling overwhelmed, he  ended  up
getting in his car and drove off.  The applicant went  absent  without
leave (AWOL) on 6 Sep 99 in an attempt to clear his  head.   Upon  his
voluntary return to base, the applicant was directed to  the  hospital
for a physical exam and to Mental Health for counseling.  An  FEB  was
held on 3 Aug 00, at which time the  board  recommended  reinstatement
into training.  Subsequent  to  the  board,  the  applicant  confessed
ideations of suicide had occurred during the period he was AWOL.   The
-- FW/CC  directed  the  board  be  reconvened  to  consider  the  new
evidence.

According  to  AETC/DO,  justification  to  restore  the   applicant’s
qualification  for  aviation   service   was   unsubstantiated.    The
applicant’s qualifications for future aviation service  were  examined
during the FEB in accordance with Air Staff guidance per  AFI  11-402,
paragraphs 4.5.6., Recommendations to Disqualify.  The  best  interest
of the Air Force is the prime criterion  when  evaluating  each  case.
The board unanimously agreed with this action, as  did  all  reviewing
authorities and the AETC Commander.  Aviation service is not a  right;
the Air Force disqualifies a member when he or she is found  medically
or professionally unqualified to perform aviation service.

A complete copy of the AETC/DO evaluation,  with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

By letter, dated 21 Jan 03, counsel provided a rebuttal response  from
the applicant.  In his response, the applicant indicated that the most
credible argument that he be returned to aviation  service  ultimately
lies in the fact that depression is a medical condition.  His  alleged
questionable “traits of  character  and  personality  characteristics”
disqualifying him from aviation service occurred during a  three-month
period from Sep 99 to Nov 99.  It was during this time that he did  go
AWOL, had thoughts of suicide while AWOL, and was repeatedly dishonest
to his therapist by stating that he did not have thoughts  of  suicide
while he was AWOL.  All of the acts  of  indiscretion  were  a  direct
result of the mental depression  he  was  experiencing  at  the  time.
While it does not excuse  his  actions,  it  does  provide  a  medical
explanation for them.

One year later after going AWOL, he did  experience  a  recurrence  of
depression after the first  FEB.   This  time,  he  self-reported  his
feelings of depression to his therapist and self-reported the suicidal
thoughts he felt the  prior  year.   He  was  completely  upfront  and
honest.  Based on his  first  episode,  he  was  provided  the  tools,
knowledge, and education to deal with depression, and  he  effectively
used those tools by voluntarily reporting to his therapist.  Based  on
his  therapist’s   and   psychiatrist’s   recommendations,   he   took
antidepressant  medication  for  exactly  two  months  following   the
recurrence.  This recurrence was not as severe as the episode  a  year
prior because he did not have thoughts of suicide. In  fact,  some  of
his doctors alleged that this recurrence was not a second episode, but
a carry over of his initial depression that was incompletely  treated.
Regardless, since he stopped taking the antidepressant  medication  in
Nov 00, he has not experienced any symptoms of depression.   Prior  to
his depression, he performed at an outstanding level at the Air  Force
Academy and at Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT).  He  now  continues
to perform outstandingly in his current career field.  His dream is to
return to fly for the Air Force.  He hopes the Board affords  him  the
opportunity to serve his country as a pilot in the Air Force.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Medical Consultant recommended denial.  He noted  the  applicant's
argument that his history of depression is comparable to a severe cold
or a broken arm, which resolve  completely.   The  Medical  Consultant
indicated these conditions do resolve completely and impart no adverse
meaning regarding a flyer’s underlying ability to tolerate the demands
of  piloting  a  military  aircraft  under  conditions   of   military
operations and combat.  Adjustment  disorder  and  depression  on  the
other hand raise a bright red flag with regard to the member’s  future
ability to tolerate the stress of military flight and reliably perform
his flying duties in a safe and effective manner.  The  appearance  of
depressed  mood  may  indicate  a  major  disqualifying  condition,  a
weakness of coping that are unsuitable for  duty  as  an  aviator,  or
merely a predictable, passing normal response to  an  unusual  set  of
stressful circumstances.  A single  brief  episode  as  initially  was
thought to have been the case with the applicant may be considered  as
an isolated event without adverse significance for  qualification  for
flying duties when a thorough psychological evaluation and a period of
observation demonstrates it to be so.  However, the applicant in  fact
had experienced more chronic and severe symptoms  (suicidal  ideation,
plan and perhaps intent) than originally reported and also experienced
recurrent symptoms in the absence of  significant  external  stressors
(onset before the FEB at a time he was not engaged  in  the  stressful
flight training environment).  His  initial  diagnosis  of  adjustment
disorder was thus changed to  major  depressive  disorder,  recurrent,
moderate severity.  This is no longer even remotely  comparable  to  a
severe cold  or  a  broken  bone.   This  diagnosis  disqualifies  the
applicant who is at risk for unpredictable  recurrence,  and  who  has
shown an inability to effectively cope with  the  stress  of  commonly
experienced personal problems, producing symptoms that  are  dangerous
and magnified many times in the cockpit.  The number of prior episodes
of  depression  predicts  the  likelihood  of  a  subsequent  episode.
Individuals who have had two episodes have  a  70  percent  chance  of
having a third.  Those who have had three episodes have a  90  percent
chance of having a  fourth.   The  timing  of  recurrent  episodes  is
unpredictable, and not  always  in  direct  relationship  to  external
stressors.   Initial  episodes  often  occur   in   the   setting   of
identifiable stressors, however subsequent episodes do  not  occur  at
predictable times of  stress.   The  applicant  has  demonstrated  the
development of significant symptoms (suicidal ideation)  when  exposed
to personal  problems  during  a  period  of  routine  military  pilot
training, albeit a stressful time as well.  Further, the applicant has
shown himself to be unreliable in reporting symptoms  of  his  illness
and has demonstrated poor judgment when experiencing  those  symptoms.
These facts combined with the fact that an individual who is depressed
and even actively having thoughts  of  suicide  may  appear  perfectly
normal to those around him render the applicant unsuitable for duty as
a pilot in the Air  Force.   With  two  episodes  of  depression,  the
applicant is not suitable for duties involving flying.

According to the Medical  Consultant,  the  issues  involved  are  not
merely  medical.   The  safety  of  military  aviation  (and  civilian
aviation as well)  depends  on  the  integrity  of  its  pilots.   The
accuracy  of  medical  and  psychologic  evaluations  for  determining
medical fitness for aviation service is based on the  honesty  of  the
pilots.   Those who conceal ailments and symptoms because  of  concern
for their personal career place themselves and others around  them  at
great risk.  This is not tolerated in the Air Force.   The  fact  that
the applicant had lied about his mental condition was  sufficient  and
clear grounds for reconvening the FEB.  The decision by the  FEB,  and
subsequent review and approval by the Commander of Air  Education  and
Training Command, supercedes any Air Force medical authority.  In  the
Medical Consultant's opinion, the medical  issues  do  not  warrant  a
change in the applicant's records.

A complete copy of the Medical Consultant's evaluation is at Exhibit
F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion from  the  Medical  Consultant
and furnished a response indicating, in part, that it did not deny the
salient facts of his case, nor refute Dr. W---'s  opinion.   In  fact,
the Consultant agreed with Dr. W--- that the  applicant's  failure  to
report his condition was a symptom of  his  illness.   The  Consultant
also apparently agreed that depression, in and of itself, would not be
a disqualifying factor.  He then seems to contradict these  assertions
by  stating  that  his  failure  to  report   should   lead   to   his
disqualification.  He asks that the Board  fully  consider  Dr. W---'s
opinion after he examined and returned him to flight status.

Applicant's complete response is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

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  and  the
documentation  provided  in  support  of   his   appeal   sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices
of primary responsibility (OPRs).   No  evidence  has  been  presented
which shows to our satisfaction that the information used as  a  basis
for the applicant's permanent disqualification from  aviation  service
was erroneous, there was an abuse of discretionary authority, or  that
he is not at risk for an unpredictable  recurrence  of  the  condition
that  ultimately  led  to  his  disqualification.   In  view  of   the
foregoing, and in the absence of sufficient evidence to the  contrary,
we agree with the recommendation 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.

4.  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 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 BC-
2002-02353 in Executive Session on 30 Apr 03, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
      Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Member
      Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Jun 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AETC/DO, dated 13 Dec 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Dec 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, applicant, dated 14 Jan 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, counsel, dated 21 Jan 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 4 Mar 03.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 Mar 03.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, applicant, dated 31 Mar 03.




                                   WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                   Panel Chair