RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-02483
            INDEX CODE:  108.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His medical separation be changed to a medical retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His medical condition was misdiagnosed.  He was rated  for  the  wrong
diagnosis.

In support of his appeal, the applicant  provided  documentation  from
the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 27 Aug 97 for a  period
of four years, in the grade of airman  basic.   Prior  to  the  matter
under review, the applicant was promoted to the grade of airman  first
class.  He received two Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs)  in  which
he received overall ratings of 5, 3 (1-5 (Highest)), respectively.

A  psychiatric  report  detailing  the  treatment  the  applicant  had
received from the Mental Health Flight  of  the  ---th  Medical  Group
indicated that  the  applicant  originally  presented  on  25  Jan  00
complaining  of  several  months  of  feeling  dizzy,  shaky,   having
headaches and chest pains due to stress  and  anxiety.   He  expressed
concern about an upcoming 90-day deployment in Mar  00.   He  reported
feeling increasingly unhappy  for  several  months  and  that  he  had
trouble sleeping, awakening several times per night.  He complained of
feeling tense, irritable, and tired all day.   He  had  been  avoiding
activities and people.  He reported recurrent suicide ideations,  (SI)
with strong thoughts of crashing his car at times.  He attributed  his
distress to maltreatment by the Air Force.  He reported whenever away,
such as on leave, he felt well.  He was diagnosed with depression, not
otherwise specified (NOS) (manifested by poor sleep,  anxiety,  worry,
pessimism, guilt,  loss  of  appetite,  and  suicidal  ideation.   All
symptoms resolved with leave, and reemerged when  patient  anticipated
return to active duty); and a personality  disorder  NOS,  provisional
(dependent and histrionic traits).  The applicant was referred  for  a
Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).

On 16  May  00,  an  MEB  convened  and  established  a  diagnosis  of
depression  NOS.   Degree  of  impairment  for  civilian  social   and
industrial  adaptability  was  mild   The  MEB  recommended  that  the
applicant’s case be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board.

On 30 May 00, an Informal Physical Evaluation  Board  (IPEB)  convened
and established diagnoses  of  major  depressive  disorder  NOS,  mild
social  and  industrial  adaptability  impairment;  and,   personality
disorder, NOS, with dependent and histrionic traits.  The  IPEB  found
that the applicant was unfit because of physical disability, that  the
disability was incurred while the applicant was  entitled  to  receive
basic pay, that the disability was incurred in the line of duty,  that
the disability was  ratable  under  VA  Diagnostic  Code  9435  at  10
percent,  and  that  the  disability  may  be  permanent.   The   IPEB
recommended that the applicant be discharged with severance pay.   The
applicant agreed with the findings and recommended disposition of  the
IPEB.

On 31 May 00, the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  directed  that  the
applicant  be  separated  from  active  duty  service   for   physical
disability under the provisions of 10 USC 1203, with severance pay.

The applicant was honorably discharged on  27  Jun  00  (Disability  -
Entitled to Severance Pay).  He was credited with 2 years,  10 months,
1 day of active duty service.

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:

The Medical Consultant recommended denial noting  that  following  his
discharge, the applicant sought  continued  treatment  and  disability
compensation from  the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA).   He
underwent a mental health evaluation by the DVA on 5 Dec  00  and  was
noted to have symptoms consistent with bipolar disorder.   The  report
stated he was doing well, happily married  and  employed  as  an  auto
mechanic, though continuing to experience mild symptoms  of  depressed
mood and irritability.  The DVA  rated  his  bipolar  disorder  at  30
percent.

According  to  the  Medical  Consultant,  the  applicant  developed  a
depressive  disorder  NOS  that  was  later  rediagnosed  as   bipolar
disorder.  The change does not represent any  evidence  of  diagnostic
error as bipolar disorder may  often  first  present  with  depression
before other manifestations  suggestive  of  bipolar  disorder  become
apparent.  The applicant’s psychiatric condition was properly rated by
the Physical Evaluation Board.  The subsequent  diagnostic  refinement
did not alter the basis of the  rating  which  is  the  impairment  of
social  and  industrial  adaptability  applied  to   all   psychiatric
conditions.

In the Medical Consultant’s view, there was no evidence to  support  a
higher rating at the time of the applicant's discharge.  His case  was
properly   evaluated,   appropriately   rated,   and   received   full
consideration under the provisions of AFI 36-3212.  He indicated  that
the action and disposition in this  case  were  proper  and  reflected
compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law, and, that
no change in the records is warranted.

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

AFPC/DPPD  recommended  denial  indicating  that  upon  reviewing  the
preponderance of evidence provided  in  the  record,  it  appears  the
veteran’s  request  for  an  increase  in  his  disability  rating  is
primarily supported from a DVA rating decision.  In their view, it  is
essential that the applicant understand the difference between the Air
Force and DVA disability systems, which operate under  separate  laws.
Under the Air Force system (Title 10, USC), Physical Evaluation Boards
must determine if an individual’s medical condition renders them unfit
for duty.  The fact that a person may have a  medical  condition  does
not automatically signify the condition  is  unfitting  for  continued
military service.  To be unfitting, the medical condition must be such
that it by itself precludes the individual from fulfilling the purpose
for which he or she is employed.  If a PEB renders a finding of unfit,
federal law provides appropriate compensation  due  to  the  premature
termination of the member’s military career.

AFPC/DPPD stated that  Air  Force  disability  boards  can  only  rate
unfitting medical conditions based on 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 veterans once they depart active duty.   The
DVA may increase or decrease a member’s  service-connected  disability
rating based on the seriousness of the  medical  condition  throughout
his or her life span.  During their review of the DVA rating decision,
it was noted that the applicant  is  currently  being  rated  for  his
bipolar disorder at 30 percent.  However, it also states the  assigned
rating is not considered permanent and subject to future examinations.

According  to  AFPC/DPPD,  they  found  no  grounds  to   change   the
applicant’s records to reflect an increase in his original  disability
rating along with the  award  of  a  disability  retirement.   It  was
determined that the applicant was treated fairly  throughout  the  Air
Force Disability Evaluation System (DES),  was  properly  rated  under
disability guidelines, and that he was afforded  the  opportunity  for
further review as provided by federal laws and policy.  In their view,
the applicant did not provided sufficient documentation to reflect  an
injustice occurred during his process through the Air Force DES, which
resulted in his receiving a disability discharge under the  provisions
of military disability laws and policy.

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  14
Mar 03 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  and  the
documentation  submitted  in  support  of  his   appeal   sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force  office
of primary responsibility (OPR).  The  evidence  of  record  indicates
that an IPEB found the applicant  was  unfit  for  continued  military
service because of major  depressive  and  personality  disorders  and
recommended that he be discharged with 10 percent severance  pay.   He
agreed with the IPEB and was subsequently discharged.  No evidence has
been presented which would lead us to believe that the  applicant  was
improperly  diagnosed  or  inappropriately  rated.   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.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
2002-02483 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 30 Jul 02, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 30 Jan 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 8 Mar 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Mar 03.




                                   WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                   Panel Chair