RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02797
            INDEX CODE:  100.03, 100.06,
                             108.01
            COUNSEL:  Mr. James A. Hernandez

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His records be corrected to show that he was medically retired on 6  Mar
70 with  a  diagnosis  of  Post  Traumatic  Stress  Disorder  (PTSD),  Major
Depressive  Disorder,  Dysthymic  Disorder,  and  Panic   Disorder   without
Agoraphobia.

2.  In the alternative, his records  be  changed  to  reflect  that  he  was
discharged for medical reasons and his reenlistment  eligibility  (RE)  code
be corrected to reflect a code reflecting a medical condition.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was discharged  in  1970  for  reason  of  unsuitability/unfitness.   His
medical record indicates as early as March 1969 that he was having  physical
symptoms of PTSD.  On 26 Aug 69 he had a  severe  case  of  the  shakes  and
nervousness followed by tremors.   He  could  not  eat  and  had  spells  of
vomiting.   He  was  referred  to  psychiatric  counseling.   His   physical
symptoms worsened and his performance at work was  affected.   In  addition,
he was not provided rehabilitation according to  his  notice  of  discharge.
At that time, in late 1969 and early  1970,  he  was  suffering  from  PTSD,
Major Depressive Disorder, Dysthymic Disorder, and  Panic  Disorder  without
Agoraphobia.  He was diagnosed by the Department of Veterans' Affairs  (DVA)
with PTSD in June 2002 and given a disability rating of 50 percent.

In  support  of  his  request,  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,
extracts from his medical records; a copy of his DD Form 214,  Armed  Forces
of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge;  documents  associated
with his discharge  processing,  and  DVA  rating  decision.   His  complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  on  11  Jul  67  and  was
progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class.

On 3 Dec 69, the applicant was notified by his commander of  his  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment  under  Article  15  of  the  UCMJ  for  being
disorderly on station.  He was advised of his  rights  in  this  matter  and
acknowledged receipt of the notification on that same date.  He  waived  his
right to demand trial by court-martial,  accepted  Article  15  proceedings,
and did not provide matters on his own behalf to his commander.   On  3  Dec
69, after consideration of all the facts, his commander determined  that  he
committed one or more of the offenses alleged and imposed punishment on  the
applicant.  He was reduced to the grade of airman  ordered  to  forfeit  $40
pay.  The applicant appealed his  punishment  to  the  appellate  authority.
His appeal was denied.

On  2  Feb  70,  applicant  was  notified  by  his  commander  that  he  was
recommending that he be discharged from the Air  Force  in  accordance  with
AFM  39-12,  section  A.   The  specific  reason  for  this  action  was   a
psychiatric  consultation  revealed  that  he   had   a   passive-aggressive
personality disorder.  He was advised of  his  rights  in  this  matter  and
acknowledged receipt of the notification on that  same  date.   A  discharge
evaluation officer interviewed the applicant  and  recommended  that  he  be
discharged and furnished an honorable discharge.  The applicant elected  not
to submit statements on his own behalf.  In a legal review of the case,  the
staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient. On 24  Feb  70,  the
discharge authority concurred with the recommendations and directed that  he
be discharged and furnished an Honorable Discharge  certificate.   Applicant
was discharged from the Air Force on 6 Mar  70  for  unsuitability  and  was
issued an RE code of "RE-2."  He served 2 years, 10 months, and 17  days  on
active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends that  the  reason  for  discharge  as
unsuitability be changed and consideration given to changing the  reason  to
medical.  The Medical Consultant states that it is  plausible  to  view  the
pattern of behavior exhibited  by  the  applicant  as  consistent  with  the
beginnings of PTSD.  The episode in June 1969 when he fired  his  weapon  in
an unauthorized manner  is  suggestive  of  behavior  consistent  with  fear
stemming from his situation and could have been  the  initial  manifestation
of PTSD that later intensified to the point of psychological  distress  that
manifested as irritability,  anxiety  and  depressed  mood.   While  he  had
identifiable passive aggressive personality traits that contributed  to  his
reduced ability to cope with  his  circumstances,  the  lack  of  behavioral
problems prior to this  time  suggests  that  these  traits  may  not  today
qualify for a diagnosis of personality  disorder.   His  performance  report
for the time he was in Vietnam does not suggest behavior consistent  with  a
personality disorder.

At that time in 1969,  the  diagnostic  category  of  PTSD  did  not  exist.
However,  a  diagnosis  within  the  neurosis  category  was  used  by   the
psychiatrist (traumatic neurosis is a term that may have been  used  but  it
is not specifically listed).  The psychiatrist who evaluated  the  applicant
sought to make a diagnosis of a neurosis but rather rendered diagnoses of  a
situational reaction (Adjustment Reaction of Adult Life) and  a  personality
disorder.  The latter diagnoses are unsuiting and subject to  administrative
discharge and  do  not  make  an  individual  eligible  for  review  in  the
disability system.  A diagnosis of neurosis would  have  been  an  unfitting
diagnosis subject  to  medical  disability  evaluation.   The  diagnosis  of
Adjustment Reaction of Adult Life is classified as a  Transient  Situational
Disturbance that included "more or less transient disorders of any  severity
that occur in individuals without any apparent underlying  mental  disorders
and that represent an acute reaction to overwhelming  environmental  stress.
If the patient has good adaptive capacity his  symptoms  usually  recede  as
the stress diminishes.  However, if the symptoms persist  after  the  stress
is removed, the diagnosis of another mental disorder is indicated.   In  his
response to his  Article  15,  he  states  that  his  outward  symptoms  had
improved, which may have reinforced the  psychiatrist's  impression  of  the
transient nature of his symptoms.

While in  retrospect  with  today's  knowledge,  a  diagnosis  of  PTSD  can
plausibly be applied to the applicant's  symptoms  developing  during  1969;
there is no clear evidence that the applicant was  improperly  diagnosed  at
the  time  with  the  facts  as  known  at  the  time.   Given   the   total
circumstances, if he had been given a diagnosis of neurosis, he  would  have
likely been found unfit.  Due to the fact that he was performing his  duties
in a satisfactory manner albeit minimally, it is highly  unlikely  that  the
severity of his condition would have been rated at the level  of  a  medical
retirement.  Rather, separation with severance pay at 10 percent would  have
been the most likely outcome.   The  Medical  Consultant  evaluation  is  at
Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial of the applicant's request.   DPPD  states  that
his medical records include an examination conducted for the purpose of  his
administrative discharge.  The psychiatric portion of the  review  concluded
he had a passive-aggressive personality  disorder  in  addition  to  lacking
interpersonal and adapting coping skills.  Examination pointed out  that  he
did not suffer from any medical conditions, which would have  qualified  him
for separation under the disability evaluation system.  He was  subsequently
qualified for  general  military  service  with  no  disqualifying  physical
profiles.  Policy states that certain conditions  such  as  Personality  and
Adjustment Disorders do not  constitute  a  physical  disability  under  the
provisions of federal disability laws and policy  and  are  not  ratable  or
compensable under Title 10.  The fact that he is currently being treated  by
the DVA does not automatically make him eligible for a  military  disability
discharge/retirement.  In order to qualify for a disability  retirement,  he
would have had to attain a serious or  life  threatening  medical  condition
prior to his release from  active  duty.   It  appears  his  request  for  a
military disability retirement is primarily supported from  his  DVA  rating
which was effective 14 Aug 01, 32 years following his  release  from  active
duty.   The  case  file  revealed  no  errors  or  irregularities   in   the
administrative  discharge  process  that  would  justify  a  change  to  his
military records.  DPPD agrees with the Medical Consultant's medical  aspect
portion of the advisory but disagrees that his records should be changed  to
reflect a different  discharge  reason/authority  and  RE  code  since  they
correctly  reflect  what  transpired  at  the  time   of   his   involuntary
administrative discharge.  The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel responded and states that  he  concurs  the  recommendation  of  the
Medical Consultant.  In further support of his request,  applicant  provided
a sworn statement, an extract from his medical  record,  and  a  physician's
letter.  His complete submission, with attachments, 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.  The majority of the Board finds sufficient relevant  evidence  has  been
presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice  that  would  warrant
corrective action.  After a thorough review of the evidence  of  record  the
Board majority believes  that  during  the  time  period  in  question,  the
applicant exhibited behavior that  appears  to  have  been  consistent  with
characteristics associated with PTSD.  However, the diagnostic  category  of
PTSD did not exist until after his discharge for unsuitability.   The  Board
noted that the Air Force evaluators  opined  different  assessments  of  his
diagnoses at the time.  The Board majority believes that the  applicant  has
established reasonable doubt in this particular case  and  agrees  with  the
opinion and recommendation of the BCMR  medical  consultant.    Accordingly,
the Board majority believes it would be in the  best  interest  of  the  Air
Force and the applicant to resolve this matter in his favor.  Therefore,  it
is the Board majority's opinion that  in  order  to  provide  him  fair  and
equitable relief his records should be corrected as  indicated  below.   The
Board considered the applicant's request that his records  be  corrected  to
reflect that he was medically retired; however, the Board majority does  not
believe that his condition at the time of his discharge  was  severe  enough
to warrant a disability rating higher than 10 percent.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

      a. On 5 March 1970, he was found unfit to perform the duties of his
office, rank, grade, or rating by reason of physical disability, incurred
while he was entitled to receive basic pay; that  the  diagnosis  in  his
case was neurosis (other unspecified) DVA diagnostic code 9410, rated  at
10%; that  the  compensable  percentage  was  10%;  that  the  degree  of
impairment was permanent; that the disability was not due to  intentional
misconduct or willful neglect;  that  the  disability  was  not  incurred
during a period of unauthorized absence; and that the disability was  not
received in the line of duty as a direct  result  of  armed  conflict  or
caused by an instrumentality of war.

      b. On 6 March 1970, he was not discharged for unsuitability, but on
that date he was honorably discharged by reason of  physical  disability,
with entitlement to disability severance pay.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board  considered  Docket  Number  02-02797  in
Executive Session on 29 Jan 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Panel Chair
      Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
      Ms. Martha Evans, Member

By a majority vote, the Board voted to  grant  the  request.   Mr. Sheuerman
voted to deny the applicant's  request  and  did  not  desire  to  submit  a
minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Aug 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 23 Oct 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 27 Nov 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Dec 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Dec 02.




                             PHILIP SHEUERMAN
                                             Panel Chair

AFBCMR 02-02797




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

            a.  On 5 March 1970, he was found unfit to perform the duties
of his office, rank, grade, or rating by reason of physical disability,
incurred while he was entitled to receive basic pay; that the diagnosis
in his case was neurosis (other unspecified) DVA diagnostic code 9410,
rated at 10%; that the compensable percentage was 10%; that the degree of
impairment was permanent; that the disability was not due to intentional
misconduct or willful neglect; that the disability was not incurred
during a period of unauthorized absence; and that the disability was not
received in the line of duty as a direct result of armed conflict or
caused by an instrumentality of war.

            b.  On 6 March 1970, he was not discharged for unsuitability,
but on that date he was honorably discharged by reason of physical
disability, with entitlement to disability severance pay.








  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency