RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03742
                                       INDEX CODE:  108.05
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX              COUNSEL: NO

      XXXXXXXXXXXXX                     HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be paid the  remaining  amount  of  severance  pay  owed  to  him  or  be
reinstated to a temporary disability retirement list (TDRL)  status  with  a
disability rating higher than 30%.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have been paid severance pay based on the current E-4  pay  grade.
His severance pay was based  on  his  E-4  base  pay  at  the  time  of  his
separation.  He would not have accepted the severance pay had he known  that
it would be calculated based on his  pay  at  the  time  of  his  discharge.
According to his examining physician, he is not stable enough to be  off  of
TDRL status.  He should be  reinstated  to  TDRL  status  and  be  given  an
increase in his 30% disability rating.

In support of his application, he provides a personal statement and  a  copy
of page  2  of  the  Fact  Sheet  on  Discharge  with  Severance  Pay.   The
applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 26 February 1997, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at  the
age of 20 in the grade of airman (E-2) for a period of four years.   He  was
progressively promoted to the rank of  senior  airman  (E-4)  effective  and
with a date of rank of 26 February 2000.  The applicant was trained  in  the
Air Force Specialty Code 2W151, Aircraft Armament Systems Journeyman  career
field.  He received three enlisted performance reports  for  the  period  26
February 1997 through 12 September 2000, all with an overall  rating  of  4,
with the last report being referred for financial irresponsibility.

In November 1999, the applicant was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder and  was
treated  with  lithium  (stabilizes  mood  swings).    He   did   well   and
discontinued the medication  in  February  2000.   He  was  doing  well  off
medication until the summer  of  2000,  when  he  suffered  a  relapse  that
continued  into  February  2001.   A  Medical  Evaluation  Board  (MEB)  was
initiated and completed in February 2001.  On  1  March  2001,  an  Informal
Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) determined he  was  unfit  and  recommended
his placement on TDRL status with 30% disability.  On  24  April  2001,  the
applicant was released from active duty with an  honorable  characterization
of service and a narrative reason of temporary  disability.   His  name  was
placed on the TDRL due to the diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder (type  1).   The
applicant served 4 years, 1 month and 29 days on active duty.

The applicant underwent TDRL reevaluation in July 2002.  On 21 August  2002,
the IPEB rated his  condition  at  10%,  determining  that  his  social  and
industrial adaptability impairment was  mild;  his  condition  had  improved
since being placed on TDRL; and his condition appeared to  have  stabilized.
The IPEB noted that the applicant had maintained  a  fulltime  job  for  the
last 18 months.  His name was removed from the TDRL and  he  was  discharged
effective 20 October 2002.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

DFAS-RPB-TQAL/CL  recommends  denial.   DFAS  states  that  the  applicant’s
severance pay was properly computed  in  accordance  with  10  U.S.C.  1210;
therefore, no correction is warranted. The DFAS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The BCMR Medical Consultant summarized  the  information  contained  in  the
applicant’s personnel and medical records and is  of  the  opinion  that  no
change in the records is warranted.  It is  the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant’s
opinion that action and disposition in this case were proper  and  equitable
reflecting compliance with Air Force  directives  that  implement  the  law.
Details of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation are at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPD   recommends   denial.    DPPD   states,   after   reviewing   the
preponderance of evidence provided, they find no error occurred  during  the
applicant’s process through the  disability  evaluation  system.   The  DPPD
evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on  2  May
2003 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F).  As  of  this  date,
this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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  are  not  persuaded  by  the  evidence
presented that the applicant’s discharge  from  the  Air  Force  because  of
physical disability based on the determination that the  compensable  rating
for his condition was less  than  30  percent  or  the  computation  of  his
disability severance pay were improper or contrary to the provisions of  the
governing regulations, which implement the law.  We have  seen  no  evidence
indicating that  the  above-cited  actions  or  findings  were  contrary  to
regulation or accepted medical principles.  The  applicant’s  severance  pay
was properly computed  in  accordance  with  the  governing  law  using  his
credited active service and the basic pay for his grade at the time  of  his
discharge.  We therefore agree with the assessments by the  Defense  Finance
and Accounting  Service  and  the  Air  Force  advisories  and  adopt  their
rationale as the basis  for  our  decision.   Accordingly,  the  applicant’s
request 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 25 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Panel Chair
      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
      Mr. James E. Short, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with  AFBCMR
Docket No. BC-2002-03742:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Nov 02, with attachment.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, DFAS-RPB-TQAL/CL, dated 31 Jan 03.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dtd 14 Mar 03.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 23 Apr 03.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 May 03.




                                                   PHILIP SHEUERMAN