RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01570
                                        INDEX CODE 100.06  110.02
                                        COUNSEL:  None

                                        HEARING DESIRED:  Yes


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2Q be changed so he can reenlist.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to stressful situations, he requested  discharge  after  less  than  two
years of service. He had asked  not  to  be  placed  in  medical  situations
because of a blood phobia. He was nevertheless  placed  in  Health  Services
Management, where he overcame his phobia. He was frustrated by his  lack  of
professional opportunities, a broken engagement,  and  caring  for  his  ill
mother. He believes  several  personal  and  cultural  reasons  led  to  his
misdiagnosis  and  he  was  misinformed  about  the  consequences  of   this
misdiagnosis. The situation was temporary,  he  receives  no  counseling  or
medication, has earned a college degree, and become a citizen. He  wants  to
reenlist.

In support of the appeal, the applicant submits character references  and  a
Hillsborough County, FL sheriff’s  office  certification  that  no  criminal
record could be found. He also presents a statement  from  a  physician  who
advises the applicant  has  seen  him  for  small  complaints  and  “appears
mentally and physical stable.”

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular  Air  Force  on  17  Dec  97  and  was
assigned to the 959th MSGS at Wilford Hall Medical Center  (WHMC),  Lackland
AFB, as an emergency  room  administration  technician.  On  his  enlistment
medical history, he indicated he had no medical problems.

In Mar 98, the  applicant  was  required  to  attend  formal  alcohol  abuse
educational class because he  was  drunk  on  station  while  a  student  in
technical school. No diagnosis of alcohol dependence or abuse was  made.  He
was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol on 23 Aug  98.
He was referred to the Alcohol  and  Drug  Abuse  Prevention  and  Treatment
(ADAPT) Program. On 16 Sep 98, he self-referred to the Mental Health  Clinic
for feeling sad, angry, isolated, and irritable for being in a  job  he  did
not want. He expressed concern that what he said  would  affect  his  career
goals. He was treated at the WHMC partial  hospitalization  program  for  an
adjustment disorder with mixed  features,  alcohol  abuse,  and  personality
disorder.

On 27 Oct 98, the applicant’s commander imposed an Article 15  for  the  DUI
incident on 23 Aug 98. The applicant made an oral and written  presentation.
He was punished with 21 days of additional duty and  reduction  from  airman
first class (A1C) to airman, suspended until 27 Apr 99.  The  applicant  did
not appeal and the Article 15 was found legally sufficient and filed in  his
Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

On 5 Nov 98, the applicant was taken to WHMC emergency  facility,  reporting
stressors including  the  DUI,  job  dissatisfaction,  separation  from  his
fiancée and  thoughts  of  hurting  himself.  He  was  given  a  preliminary
diagnosis of cyclothymia (a mood swing disorder similar to but  milder  than
bipolar). He continued to  receive  outpatient  mental  health  and  alcohol
rehabilitation treatment. Although he reported abstinence for  four  months,
lab work  revealed  abnormally  elevated  liver  enzymes  determined  to  be
consistent with ongoing alcohol abuse.

On 22 Jan 99 he was referred to WHMC for a medical evaluation  for  symptoms
consistent with a bipolar-like illness and personality disorder. The 27  Jan
99 Narrative Summary noted the applicant began drinking  again  and  blacked
out before graduating from the ADAPT Program. The applicant  described  high
and low mood swings and indicated he had downloaded information  on  bipolar
illness. During  the  interview,  the  applicant  consistently  contradicted
himself in reference to onset, frequency, duration and  intensity  of  these
bipolar-like  symptoms.  The  psychiatrist  also  reported   the   applicant
endorsed  signs/symptoms  consistent  with   borderline   and   narcissistic
personality  traits.  Diagnoses  were  bipolar   disorder,   not   otherwise
specified (NOS), alcohol abuse, and  personality  disorder,  NOS.  Discharge
and continued mood stabilizer medication were recommended.

On 18 Feb 99, the commander advised that the applicant’s  medical  condition
did not impact his ability to accomplish his daily duties and  the  majority
of his conflicts were of a personal nature outside the  job  area.  On  that
same date, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened. Diagnosis was  bipolar
disorder, NOS, and alcohol abuse, which were found to have existed prior  to
service (EPTS), and personality disorder, NOS. His case was referred  to  an
Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB).

The IPEB convened on 26 Feb 99, found  the  applicant’s  medical  conditions
EPTS, were incompatible with military service, and were  not  aggravated  by
the service. The bipolar disorder was found unfitting but  not  compensable;
the alcohol abuse  and  personality  disorder  were  neither  unfitting  nor
compensable.  The  applicant  disagreed  and  requested  a  Formal  Physical
Evaluation Board (FPEB).

On 25 Mar  99,  the  disability  representative  forwarded  the  applicant’s
request for a “culturally sensitive psychiatric evaluation,” contending  the
psychiatric testing he received was culturally biased against  him  and  not
indicative of his  true  condition.  A  26  Mar  99  psychiatric  evaluation
advised that no  psychological  testing,  per  se,  was  performed  and  the
findings (bipolar and personality disorders, alcohol abuse)  were  based  on
clinical signs, symptoms and judgment of  the  interviewing  physician,  and
that they did EPTS. On 26 Mar 99,  the  applicant’s  request  for  a  second
evaluation was disapproved.

The  FPEB  convened  on  29  Mar  99  and  agreed  with  the  findings   and
recommendations  of  the  IPEB.  The  10%  compensable  percentage  was  not
applicable because the medical conditions EPTS.  The  applicant  provided  a
rebuttal letter, contending he had only two, not  multiple,  alcohol-related
incidents and questioning the “long history” of bipolar-like symptoms.

On 5 May 99, the Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  Personnel  Council  (SAFPC)
considered the applicant’s rebuttal letter and concluded his condition  EPTS
without service aggravation. SAFPC also  believed  there  were  grounds  for
pursuing a fraudulent enlistment because the  applicant  had  not  disclosed
more information on his medical history form; however, they elected  not  to
return the case for further legal  review  and  concurred  with  the  I/FPEB
findings.

On 29 Jun 99, the applicant was honorably discharged in  the  grade  of  A1C
with a narrative reason of disability after 1 year, 6 months,  and  13  days
of active service. He was issued an  RE  code  of  2Q  (Personnel  medically
retired or discharged). The applicant received  approximately  $4,471.20  in
disability severance pay.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical  Consultant  provides  a  detailed  medical  history  and
advises the bipolar disorder diagnosis was noted  not  to  be  a  firm  one;
however, it  is  a  chronic  disorder  often  characterized  by  periods  of
remission  with  unpredictable   relapses.   Regardless,   the   applicant’s
personality disorder and failure in  the  alcohol  treatment  program  alone
rendered him unsuitable for continued military service and  reenlistment.  A
narrative reason for discharge of “disability” is  preferred  by  most  over
“personality disorder.” The  Consultant  contends  there  was  an  error  in
executing the order of SAFPC and the  applicant  was  disability  discharged
with 10% severance pay,  which  he  should  not  have  received.  Denial  is
recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPRSP believes the discharge was  consistent  with  the  procedural
and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within  the
discharge authority’s discretion. The applicant has  not  substantiated  any
errors or injustices and his appeal should be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE advises that the RE code is correct.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E.
______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF EVALUATION:

Complete  copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 9 Jan 04 for review and comment within 30  days.   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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest
of justice to waive the failure to timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice. The  applicant’s  contentions  are  duly
noted; however, we are not persuaded that his RE  code  should  be  changed.
The Medical Consultant notes the bipolar disorder diagnosis was not  a  firm
one but  it  is  a  chronic  disorder  often  characterized  by  periods  of
remission with unpredictable relapses. The Consultant further indicates  the
applicant’s symptoms could also  be  due  to  his  personality  disorder  or
cyclothymia.  Regardless,  his  personality  disorder  and  failure  in  the
alcohol treatment program alone rendered  him  unsuitable  for  reenlistment
and continued military service. Based  on  the  Consultant’s  recommendation
and the evidence of record, we are not convinced it would  be  in  the  best
interests of the Air Force or  the  applicant  to  allow  him  to  reenlist.
Therefore, we find no basis upon which  to  recommend  favorable  action  on
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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 24 February 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                  Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
                  Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
                  Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-
01570 was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Apr 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 23 Sep 03.
      Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 30 Oct 03.
      Exhibit E. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 12 Dec 03.
      Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jan 04.



                                             OLGA M. CRERAR
                                             Panel Chair