RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-02875
            INDEX NUMBER:  108.00
      XXXXXXXXXXX      COUNSEL:  Naomi Long

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His honorable discharge from the Air Force in  1956  be  changed  to  a
medical retirement.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant’s counsel asserts on a  DD  Form  293,  Application  for  the
Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces  of  the  United
States, that applicant was discharged when he  lacked  the  ability  to
care for himself.

In support of the applicant’s appeal, counsel  provides  an  unofficial
working copy of a medical examination conducted on the applicant by the
Veterans Administration Hospital and copies of his active duty  medical
records.

Counsel’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Air Force for four years on 1 Nov 52.  He
was honorably discharged 9 Aug  56  based  on  his  request  for  early
release, dated 1 Aug 56.  The applicant  was  transferred  to  the  Air
Force Reserve until 7 Nov 60 to complete a total of eight  years  total
service, active and reserve combined.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this case are  contained  in
the Air Force evaluations prepared by the appropriate  offices  of  the
Air force found at Exhibits C and D.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR  Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s
request.
The applicant developed a mental illness while on active duty diagnosed
as a schizophrenic reaction (schizophrenia  in  today’s  nomenclature).
Many years  later  he  was  diagnosed  with  Bipolar  Disorder  and  in
retrospect his illness while on  active  duty  was  identified  as  his
initial bout with this condition.  Evidence of the record clearly shows
the applicant experienced two episodes of acute psychotic behavior, the
first March 1955 while in Japan and the second in May 1955 while  still
and inpatient at Sampson AFB, NY.  Following  treatment  with  electro-
convulsive  therapy,  his  symptoms  completely  resolved  and  he  was
returned to full duty by Jan 56.  In Aug 56,  the  applicant  requested
early separation and transfer  to  the  Reserves.   His  commander,  in
concurring with the applicant’s request, indicated that the applicant’s
character and efficiency were both  “excellent,”  reflecting  continued
fitness for duty.   His  medical  fitness  for  duty  at  the  time  of
separation was also documented by his separation physical examination.

Although the applicant did experience mental illness  while  in  active
duty, he recovered completely and returned to full duty.  At  the  time
he voluntarily separated he was fit for continued military service  and
evidence  of  the   record   indicates   he   remained   socially   and
occupationally functional for several years afterwards.  If at the time
of his discharge he had undergone a medical evaluation board, he  would
have been  returned  to  duty  and  allowed  to  complete  his  planned
separation.  Since  his  medical  condition  was  not  the  reason  for
discharge from the Air Force, and he was medically fit for duty, he was
not eligible for disability discharge from the Air Force.  Because  his
condition first developed while on active duty,  he  was  eligible  for
Veterans Affairs benefits in the years following discharge.

The reason the applicant could be fit for duty despite the history of a
medical problem and later be granted a service-connected disability  by
the VA lies in understanding the differences between Title 10, USC  and
Title 38, USC.  Title 10, USC, Chapter  61  charges  the  service  with
maintaining a fit and vital force.  For an individual to be  considered
unfit for military service, there must be a medical condition so severe
that it prevents performance of any work  commensurate  with  rank  and
experience.  The mere presence of a medical condition does not  qualify
a member for disability evaluation.  If an individual has been declared
unfit, the  Service  Secretaries  are  required  by  law  to  rate  the
condition based upon the degree of disability at the time of  permanent
disposition and not upon the possibility of future events.   No  change
in military disability ratings can occur  after  permanent  disposition
under the rules of the military  disability  system,  even  though  the
condition  may  become  better  or  worse.    Title   38   takes   into
consideration the fact that a person can  acquire  physical  conditions
that, although not unfitting at  the  time  of  separation,  may  later
progress in severity and alter the individual’s  lifestyle  and  future
employability.  With this in  mind  Title  38,  which  governs  the  VA
system,  was  written  to  allow  awarding  compensation  ratings   for
conditions that were not unfitting for military service at the time  of
separation.  This is the reason why an individual can be found fit  for
service and yet sometime thereafter receive a compensation rating  from
the DVA for service-connected, but not unfitting for military  service,
conditions.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial of the applicant’s request.   A  review  of
the AFBCMR case file confirms that the  applicant  was  never  referred
through the Air Force disability evaluation system (DES).  The decision
to process a member through the military DES is determined by a Medical
Evaluation  Board  (MEB)  when  he  or  she  is  determined   medically
disqualified for continued military service.  A medical examination  on
3  Aug  56,  completed  in  conjunction  with  his  approved  projected
discharge, clears him for separation  with  no  disqualifying  physical
profiles at the time.  Although the member  received  treatment  for  a
schizophrenic reaction, the final physical examination only refers to a
nervous breakdown while assigned  to  Nagaya  Japan.   The  commander’s
comments during the  discharge  process  refer  to  his  character  and
efficiency as  excellent.   Based  on  the  commander’s  statement,  we
believe it safe to presume the service member was reasonably capable of
performing his military duties at the time.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A newly assigned counsel for the applicant’s case responded that it  is
clear from  the  enclosed  medical  records  that  the  physician  that
administered the applicant’s discharge physical recommended him  for  a
GMS discharge.  Applicant’s counsel also indicates that the applicant’s
request for a medical discharge is only being made at  this  late  date
due to the involvement of his legal  representative.   He  also  states
that the fact that the applicant did not apply for the change in status
or recognize his medical disability only highlights the fact  that  the
applicant has suffered mental illness and its effects  for  his  entire
life since his entrance into the Air Force.

Counsel opines  that  if  the  applicant’s  complete  medical  file  is
reviewed from an objective viewpoint, there is no other conclusion that
the applicant’s medical condition originated in  the  service  and  has
continued throughout his life.

In support of the applicant’s appeal counsel provides  a  copy  of  the
applicant’s medical records  and  a  copy  of  the  discharge  physical
examination.

Counsel’s 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.  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
agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force  offices  of
primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the  primary  basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been  the  victim  of  an
error or injustice.  We note that applicant’s counsel appears  to  have
interpreted the term “GMS”  indicated  on  the  applicant’s  report  of
physical as his being recommended for a  medical  discharge.   However,
the acronym “GMS” is not an official Air Force term denoting a  medical
discharge.  In fact the physical that the applicant received where this
term was used determined that the applicant was fit for  duty  and  the
voluntary discharge that he had applied  for  could  be  approved.   In
cases like those of the applicant, the Department of  Veterans  Affairs
is the appropriate agency to provide benefits, which the  applicant  is
receiving.  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  BC-2002-
02875 in Executive Session on 15 April 2003, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
      Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Member
      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Sep 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant,
                dated 21 Jan 03.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPD, dated 27 Feb 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Mar 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 26 Mar 03,
                w/atchs.




                                   ROBERT S. BOYD
                                   Panel Chair