RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03205
            INDEX NUMBER:  108.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The reason for his separation from the Air Force be changed to Bipolar
Disorder vice Personality Disorder with all other subsequent changes.

He be medically retired from the Air Force for Bipolar Disorder.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The information that was available at the time of his separation  from
service was ambiguous and incomplete.  It was  later  determined  that
the  emotional  disturbances  he  experienced  were  due  to   Bipolar
Disorder.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 27 Dec 00.  On 17  Apr  02,
the  applicant’s  squadron  commander  notified  him   that   he   was
recommending his discharge from the Air Force  based  on  a  condition
that interferes with military service, specifically a mental disorder.
 The reason for the commander’s action was the  applicant’s  diagnosis
with an adjustment disorder.  His disorders also hampered the  mission
effectiveness of his unit  and  made  him  unsuited  to  continue  the
sensitive nature of his duties.  The applicant acknowledged receipt on
17 Apr 02 and submitted a written response.  The  applicant  indicated
that the discharge action gave an inaccurate impression  of  his  duty
performance and failed to mention his many accomplishments during  his
military career.  The applicant indicated that  the  discharge  action
should reflect that the actions leading to his discharge were not  due
to any fault of his.  On 19 Apr 02, the applicant’s squadron commander
recommended to the Wing commander that the  applicant  be  discharged,
with an honorable discharge, based on a condition that interferes with
military service.  On 23 Apr 02, the Wing Staff Judge  Advocate  found
the  discharge  action  against  the  applicant  legally   sufficient,
contingent  upon  a  finding  that  he  was  medically  qualified  for
worldwide duty.  The applicant was medically cleared and discharged on
25 Apr 02 with an honorable discharge.  The applicant’s  DD  Form  214
indicates  “Personality  Disorder”  as  the   narrative   reason   for
discharge, a separation code of “JFX,” and a Reenlistment  Eligibility
Code of “2C,” Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge;  or
entry level separation without characterization of service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s
request.   The  applicant  was  separated  for  unsuitability  due  to
Adjustment Disorder and Personality Disorder.  While on  active  duty,
his symptoms also suggested a diagnosis of cyclothymia.  The applicant
was diagnosed  with  cyclothymia,  inferred  from  the  Department  of
Veterans Affairs (DVA)  Rating  Decision  provided  by  the  applicant
(“bipolar  disorder”  (claimed  as  cyclothymia))  shortly   following
discharge.  Facts of the record show that the applicant was exhibiting
symptoms consistent  with  cyclothymia  and  that  his  mental  health
providers suspected he might have  had  this  disorder  but  that  the
symptoms he was manifesting were not of sufficient  severity  to  have
met diagnostic criteria set forth in the  Diagnostic  and  Statistical
Manual of Mental  Disorders  (DSM-IV).   The  medical  record  clearly
documents an underlying personality disorder for military service.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s  request.   Records
indicate that the applicant was never referred through the  Air  Force
military disability evaluation system (DES).  His medical records show
that mental health  examinations  diagnosed  him  with  an  Adjustment
Disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct,  in  addition
to a Personality Disorder, which is not otherwise specified.  Comments
also indicate the onsets of these personality traits as predating  his
military service.  The medical appraisal goes on to state  his  mental
condition showed no physical or mental defects  warranting  separation
under the provisions of AFI 36-3212.

Department of Defense 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, United States  Code
(USC).  In order to  qualify  for  a  disability  discharge/retirement
under AFI 36-3212, the applicant would have had to attain a serious or
life threatening medical condition prior to his  release  from  active
duty.  The applicant’s file does not include any such documentation.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force evaluations, the applicant  discusses
the events leading to his discharge and post-separation events that he
believes are relevant to his case.  He states that his appointment  at
the Mental Health Clinic  was  due  to  the  medication  he  had  been
prescribed by his primary care manager.  He states  that  an  accurate
diagnosis could not have been made until after his discharge.  He also
indicates that the premature discharge action  was  thought  necessary
due to the nature of his career field.

The applicant provides a summary of the events that led to  him  being
referred  to  the   mental   health   clinic.    He   indicates   that
misrepresentation from the social worker he saw  at  the  clinic,  the
unavailability of  a  prohibited  substances  list,  and  unacceptable
timelines for accurate  evaluation  of  his  psychological  state  and
medication effects affected the basis of the interview he underwent on
24 Jan 02 at the mental health clinic, resulting in preconceptions  of
his current  mental  state.   All  these  events  brought  unnecessary
attention  that  led   to   the   outpatient   interviews,   inpatient
hospitalizations, and to his subsequent discharge.

The applicant discusses diagnostic criteria related to cyclothymia and
personality disorders.  The applicant reinforces  his  view  that  the
events that led to his discharge precluded an  accurate  diagnosis  in
accordance with diagnostic standards.  The need for a  quick  decision
and separation was required because of the nature of his work, leading
to a presumptive diagnosis that was not the  cause  of  his  problems.
The true  cause  was  cyclothymia  and  a  correction  of  records  is
warranted.

The applicant’s complete response 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 timely filed.

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 opinions and  recommendations  of  the  Air
Force offices of primary responsibility 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  BC-2002-
03205 in Executive Session on 2 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:

      Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
      Ms. Nancy Wells Drury, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Oct 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant,
                dated 16 Dec 02.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPD, dated 28 Feb 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Mar 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, undated.




                                   ROBERT S. BOYD
                                   Panel Chair