RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2004-02260
            INDEX CODE 104.00
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The reason for his 1997 disenrollment from the US  Air  Force  Academy
(USAFA) and discharge from the Air Force be changed from “Unacceptable
Conduct” to “Medical” and he be absolved from the  recoupment  of  his
education expenses ($90,288.00).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While at  the  Academy,  he  suffered  from  acute  Bipolar  Affective
Disorder (BD), which was not diagnosed by either DOD medical personnel
prior to his entering the USAFA or the  Academy  counselors.   Despite
numerous accolades for military excellence,  including  being  on  the
Commander’s List, he often found it difficult to control his behavior.
 As a result, he was involuntarily discharged as a Cadet Second  Class
(C2C) for repeated instances of unprofessional behavior.   In  Mar 03,
he began receiving psychiatric treatment after he  attempted  suicide.
In Nov 03, he was diagnosed  with  BD,  a  lifelong  genetic  disorder
causing mental illness and debilitating mood swings, for which he must
take daily medication.  He regrets his misconduct, but he  is  certain
he would not have engaged in behavior contrary to  regulations  if  he
had been diagnosed and treated for his illness before or while he  was
a cadet.

A psychiatrist’s supporting letter,  dated  19  Nov  03,  reports  the
applicant was initially evaluated on  23  Mar  03.   He  was  referred
following an overdose  of  medications  after  breaking  up  with  his
fiancé.  The letter indicates the applicant reported a history of mood
swings since adolescence and treatment for depression when he  was  in
the USAFA.  The psychiatrist suspects the applicant had  BD  while  in
the Academy.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The following was  compiled  from  the  applicant’s  USAFA  cadet  and
medical records, which were obtained by the AFBCMR Staff:

The  applicant  entered  the  USAFA  on  30  Jun  94.   His  scheduled
commission date was 27 May 98.

The  applicant’s  medical  records  reflect  treatment  at  the  USAFA
hospital/clinic  for  minor  conditions  such  as  colds,  congestion,
dermatological issues, sprains, headaches, etc.

Statements and  evaluations  appear  to  indicate  the  applicant  was
considered to have great aptitude, initiative, and pro-activeness  and
to be very personable, professional in  appearance,  hardworking,  and
proficient in his job knowledge.

The following background information was extracted from the 27 Mar  97
USAFA Military Review Committee (MRC)  Action  Executive  Summary  and
related attachments:

           As a 4th classman, the applicant was counseled in  Mar  95  about
    an unprofessional relationship with a female 2nd classman.  In Dec  95,
    as a 3rd classman, the applicant received 20 demerits, 20 confinements,
    and a one-month restriction for an unprofessional relationship  with  a
    female 4th classman.  In Sep 96, the beginning of his 2nd  class  year,
    he developed a third unprofessional  relationship,  this  time  with  a
    female 4th classman he was assigned to  mentor.   He  demonstrated  his
    understanding of the wrongfulness of the relationship by trying to hide
    behind a bed in the 4th  classman’s  room  when  another  upperclassman
    entered.   Despite  a  period  of  aptitude  probation  and   extensive
    counseling by his chain of command, in Feb 97, the applicant created  a
    fourth  unprofessional  relationship,  this  time  with  a  female  4th
    classman from another squadron.  On  26  Feb  97,  the  cadet  squadron
    commander recommended disenrollment.  The applicant provided statements
    and character references, including two from  a  physician’s  assistant
    (PA) who asserted the applicant had “a  profound  sense  of  right  and
    wrong.”  The PA added he had a “surrogate parent” relationship with the
    applicant and believed the applicant had displayed poor judgment in  “a
    narrow area in which young men have a long tradition of poor judgment,”
    rather than an underlying character flaw. [The PA  did  not  raise  any
    mental or physical issues  as  mitigating  factors  at  that  time--See
    Exhibit E.]  On  11 Mar  97,  the  cadet  squadron  commander  directly
    ordered the applicant to have no contact with the female  4th  classman
    and not to enter her cadet squadron.

The MRC Executive Summary package reports the applicant provided  both
written and verbal statements in his appeal.  The applicant  indicated
it was difficult to justify his retention because of past  actions  of
unprofessional  relationships,  but  explained   the   definition   of
unprofessional relations was too ambiguous.  He added he learned  more
each time he was punished for unprofessional  relationships  and  that
others’ perception  of  the  relationship  must  also  be  taken  into
account.   He  indicated  he  had  difficulty  with  the  concept   of
propriety, although his commander had noted the applicant only  seemed
to have this problem with female cadets and not males.  The  applicant
requested he be retained in the Academy.  However, the MRC recommended
disenrollment.

On 2 Apr 97, after consulting counsel, the applicant requested  he  be
allowed to voluntarily resign in lieu of  disenrollment.   The  Acting
Deputy Commander, Cadet Group One, concurred  and  did  not  recommend
commissioned or enlisted service. The case was forwarded to the  USAFA
Board.

On 16 May 97, the USAFA Superintendent advised the  Secretary  of  the
Air Force (SAF) that, after consulting an Air  Force  judge  advocate,
the applicant had submitted a tender of resignation on  2  Apr  97  in
lieu of an MRC disenrollment  due  to  a  “history  of  unprofessional
relationships.”  The Superintendent added the applicant’s inability or
unwillingness to conform to this standard made him unqualified  to  be
in the Air Force in  any  capacity.   He  was  medically  cleared  for
separation, and discharge with reimbursement  to  the  government  was
recommended. On that same date, the USAFA Superintendent notified  the
applicant he  was  being  recommended  for  honorable  discharge  with
reimbursement to the Air Force for the cost of his  Academy  education
instead of serving active duty time.  The amount of reimbursement  was
$90,288.00.

According to a 29 Jul 97 letter by the USAFA Inspector  General  (IG),
the topic of unprofessional relationships between cadets  was  covered
in Cadet Wing Instruction 51-201, which stated that upperclassmen  may
not date  or  socialize  with  fourth-class  (freshman)  cadets.   The
applicant was counseled repeatedly  for  unprofessional  relationships
with female  underclassmen.   Apparently  he  gave  poetry  to  female
cadets; however, it was not necessarily sexual in nature or offensive.

On  11  Aug  97,  the  SAF   approved   the   USAFA   Superintendent’s
recommendation that the  applicant  be  disenrolled  and  directed  to
reimburse the government for the cost of his education.

The applicant was honorably discharged for “Unacceptable  Conduct”  on
11 Aug 97, after 3 years, 1 month and 12 days of active duty.  Service
as a cadet is not creditable for any purpose in  commissioned  officer
status.

On 28 Aug 97, the USAFA informed the  applicant  he  owed  a  debt  of
$90,288.00 to the government and had the right to dispute it by 17 Sep
97.  A 29 Oct 97 Memo for the Record (MFR) by  the  Clerk  of  Adverse
Actions reported he received the  applicant’s  signed  acknowledgement
but no other response.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The 10th Medical Group commander (10MDG/CC), USAFA, advised he did not
have the applicant’s medical record from 1997 because after discharge,
the medical record was sent to the military personnel flight (MPF) for
disposition.  However, the commander notes the average time from onset
of symptoms (usually retrospective) to a formal  diagnosis  of  BD  is
really quite variable, many times encompassing more  than  two  years.
This delay comes about from the fact  that  mania  feels  subjectively
good to the  patient  and  many  times  manic  symptoms  are  actually
adaptive in certain  environments.   Consequently,  treatment  is  not
sought.  This cadet’s mention of seeing “Counselors . . . while at the
Academy” may refer to the Academy Counseling Center.   In  1997,  this
Center was staffed  by  professors/educators  teaching  psychology  to
cadets who would not be in a position to  diagnose  someone  with  BD.
The applicant may have had early signs of BD in 1997 as  his  civilian
psychiatrist  suspects;  however,  there  are  several  factors  which
detract from such a possibility.  The applicant presented a collection
of personal commendations from 1997.  The aggregate of these depict  a
responsible, attentive cadet with excellent military  bearing.   These
are not typical  traits  found  in  a  manic  patient.   The  civilian
psychiatrist also failed to cite formal manic symptoms as evidence  of
BD:  decreased need for sleep, grandiosity, racing thoughts, pressured
speech, increased energy, and increased goal-directed  behavior.   The
symptoms the psychiatrist cites in his supporting letter are very non-
specific  and  often  times  are  more  indicative  of  a  personality
disorder.  While the medication the applicant is taking is  well-known
to be efficacious in BD, many other psychiatric problems respond  well
to this medication.   It  is  simply  not  possible  to  make  a  firm
diagnosis for the applicant as he was in 1997.  Although  possible  he
had some  early  symptoms  of  BD,  there  is  currently  insufficient
evidence to prove that he indeed suffered from BD in 1997.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 27 Aug 04 for review and comment within 30 days.

The applicant forwarded  a  letter  from  the  PA  who  had  submitted
supporting  statements  in  1997  during  the  applicant’s   discharge
proceedings.  The PA takes  exception  to  the  advisory  opinion  and
asserts the ultimate questions here are whether the applicant suffered
from BD or other psychiatric illness which made him medically unfit to
be at the USAFA, and whether the  health  care  professionals  at  the
USAFA failed  to  make  the  diagnosis  of  mental  illness.   The  PA
indicates he urged the applicant to obtain mental health  care,  which
he rejected believing he had  been  professionally  evaluated  at  the
USAFA.  The PA also contends the applicant has provided a “great  deal
of evidence of mental  disorder,  including  hospitalization,  divorce
[sic] and suicide attempt.”  The PA thinks any mental health  disorder
made the applicant unfit for military service and he should  therefore
be excused from his debt.

A complete copy of the PA’s response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review  of  the
evidence  of  record  and  the  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded he should be disenrolled from the USAFA for medical  reasons
and  absolved  from  his   educational   indebtedness.    During   his
disenrollment process, the applicant admitted retention was  difficult
to  justify  because   of   his   past   actions   of   unprofessional
relationships, but explained he had difficulty  with  the  concept  of
propriety.  However, his commander indicated the applicant only seemed
to have this problem with  female  cadets.   Our  examination  of  the
applicant’s medical records, which were obtained for  our  review,  do
not provide any evidence of his having BD, depression,  or  any  other
unfitting  medical  disorder  while  enrolled  in  the  Academy.   The
applicant was medically cleared for  separation,  and  discharge  with
reimbursement to the government was recommended.  The PA’s  supporting
statement was also noted.  However, this same PA did not  raise  these
mental health  issues  in  his  1997  supporting  statements,  instead
indicating in part the applicant’s “judgment  was  repeatedly  faulty,
though in a narrow area in which young men have a  long  tradition  of
poor judgment.”  The PA further recommended the applicant be  retained
in the USAFA.  Finally, the initial diagnosis of BD was not made until
2003, six years after the applicant was disenrolled and separated.  We
therefore find the  10MDG/CC’s  assessment  reasonable  based  on  the
available evidence and on the applicant  not  having  established  his
inappropriate behavior was beyond his control.  The applicant has  not
demonstrated to our satisfaction his disenrollment from the USAFA  was
unfounded and the resultant debt unjust.  In view  of  the  above  and
absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we conclude the  applicant
has not sustained his burden of having suffered either an error or  an
injustice and find no  compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the
relief sought.

4.    The applicant’s case is adequately documented  and  it  has  not
been shown that a personal appearance with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s)   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing 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 18 November 2004 under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
                 Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2004-02260 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Jul 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, 10 MDG/CC, dated 23 Aug 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Aug 04.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Physician’s Assistant, dated 27 Sep 04.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair