RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02704
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
                       COUNSEL:  NONE

                       HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  6 MAR 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty,
Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation be changed or deleted.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He  disputes  the  military’s  contention  that  his  disability   was
preexisting.  He was never treated nor  diagnosed  for  the  condition
prior to entering the military.  He is applying for  Veterans  Affairs
benefits  and  the  Air  Force’s  characterization  of  a  preexisting
condition will jeopardize his chances to receive benefits.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on 26 May 1981
as an airman basic (AB) for a  period  of  four  years  serving  as  a
apprentice law enforcement specialist.

Prior to enlisting, on 26 January 1981, the  applicant  initialed  Air
Force (AF) Form 2030, USAF Drug Abuse  Certificate,  acknowledging  he
never “illegally used or possessed dangerous drugs, narcotics, LSD  or
any hallucinogens and that he never has been arrested  by  police  for
possession or use of other substances.”

On 3 February 1981, the applicant checked “yes” on Standard Form  (SF)
93, Report of Medical History, to the following questions, “Depression
or excessive worry, Nervous trouble of any sort”  The
examining physician noted “Depression, reactive, no suicidal  attempt,
Nervous trouble - not serious enough to seek medical attention.”

On 6 January 1982,  based  on  statements  the  applicant  made  to  a
coworker/supervisor regarding his prior drug use an investigation  was
initiated into his use and possession of controlled substances.

On 6 January 1982, the applicant was hospitalized via a referral  from
the Mental Health Clinic with a chief  complaint  of  “I  think  I  am
really addicted to drugs, and want to get this worked out.”

The applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation and was diagnosed  as
having bipolar affective disorder, manic,  chronic  with  episodes  of
acute exacerbations, moderate, in remission and mixed substance  abuse
(reportedly  including  marijuana,  hashish,  cocaine,   amphetamines,
downers, LSD and others.)

On 29 January 1982,  the  applicant,  following  his  hospitalization,
completed a SF 93 and wrote “My present health  has  not  been  better
since Dec 80.  My medication is lithium bicarbonate and Navane.   They
both calm me down and slow my thought from racing.”

The  applicant  underwent  a  medical  evaluation   board   (MEB)   on
23 February  1982.   The  MEB  diagnosed  the  applicant  as   bipolar
affective  disorder,   manic,   chronic   with   episodes   of   acute
exacerbations,  moderate,  in  remission;  manifested   by   increased
activity, loquaciousness, flight of ideas, irritability, and  loss  of
concentrating  ability.   Stress:   None.   Predisposition:    Severe,
family history of bipolar affective disorder in  his  natural  mother.
Degree of Impairment:  Marked for military duty, and slight for social
and vocational rehabilitation.  The MEB recommended the applicant to a
Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).

On  4  June  1982,  the  Informal  Physical  Evaluation  Board  (IPEB)
diagnosed  the  applicant  with  bipolar  affective  disorder,  manic,
chronic with slight impairment of social and industrial  adaptability;
Existed prior to service (EPTS)  without  service  aggravation.   They
recommended the applicant be discharged under other than  Chapter  61,
10 United States Code (USC).

On 24 March 1982, the applicant’s commander  initiated  administrative
discharge  action  for  misconduct,  fraudulent  entry  due   to   the
applicant’s  failure  to   reveal   preservice   drug   use   with   a
recommendation that the applicant be discharged with  an  under  other
than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.

In the recommendation for discharge, the commander cited the following
derogatory information:

       The  applicant  received  Letters  of   Counseling   (LOC)   on
23 November 1981, 27 November 1981, 6 December 1981, 31 December  1981
and 5 January 1982.  The applicant also received a Letter of Reprimand
(LOR) on 6 January 1982.

The commander advised  applicant  of  his  right  to  consult  legal
counsel; present his case to an administrative discharge  board;  be
represented by legal counsel at a board hearing;  submit  statements
in his own behalf in addition to, or in lieu of, the board  hearing;
or waive the above rights after consulting with counsel.

After consulting  with  counsel,  applicant  offered  a  conditional
waiver to  an  administrative  discharge  board  contingent  on  his
receiving a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

On 9 April 1982, a legal review was conducted  in  which  the  staff
judge advocate recommended the applicant’s waiver be accepted and he
be separated from the Air Force with a general discharge.

On 30 April 1982, the execution of the applicant’s approved  discharge
was deferred pending dual action processing.

On 7 July 1982, the applicant’s case was processed by the Secretary of
the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) as a dual action case  with  a
determination that the applicant be discharged with a disability  that
EPTS.

On 9 August 1982, the applicant was discharged in the grade of  airman
with an under  honorable  conditions  (general)  discharge  due  to  a
disability that existed prior to service.  He served 1 year, 2  months
and 14 days of active duty service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, states bipolar disorder is an  illness
characterized by periods of sustained disruption of  mood,  associated
with distortions of perception, somatic functioning, and impairment in
social functioning.  There is  a  hereditary  predisposition  for  the
condition and the age of onset is typically between 15 and 30 years of
age.  The  mood  disorder  includes  periods  of  mania,  a  state  of
elevated, expansive, or irritable mood lasting at least  a  week,  and
periods of depressed mood or even episodes of major depression and  is
classified according to the predominant mood pattern.  Manic  episodes
are characterized by inflated self esteem, decreased need  for  sleep,
excessive talkativeness, racing of thoughts, increased  goal  directed
activity, easy distractibility, and excessive pursuit  of  pleasurable
activities without the normal regard for the  consequences  of  excess
(spending money, sexual encounters, etc.)
The most common behavioral symptoms  associated  with  manic  episodes
include  pressured  speech,  hyperverbosity,  physical  hyperactivity,
agitation, decreased need for sleep, hypersexuality and  extravagance.
Impaired slight insight is a frequent component of the manic  episode.
Bipolar disorder is a  chronic  illness  that  often  evolves  over  a
prolonged period of time (months, years) before diagnosis,  is  marked
by a course of relapses and remissions, is frequently associated  with
substance abuse, with a high rate  of  suicide  attempt  (25-50%)  and
successful suicide (15%).  Prior to treatment  with  mood  stabilizing
medications, individuals with this disorder experience 4 episodes over
10 years, however treatment with medication significantly reduces  the
frequency and severity of episodes.  The majority of individuals  with
bipolar disorder return to a fully functional level between  episodes.
However, some display inter-episode mood lability and interpersonal or
occupational  difficulties  and  some  have  incomplete  inter-episode
recovery.

The Medical Consultant further states the  applicant  alleges  he  was
never diagnosed or treated for  bipolar  disorder  prior  to  entering
military service.   Although  he  was  never  formally  diagnosed  and
treated for bipolar disorder before  entering  military  service,  the
preponderance  of  the  evidence  of  record  clearly  indicates   the
applicant was manifesting symptoms of the evolving condition prior  to
entering  active  duty  service.   The  in-service  worsening  of  the
condition  is  the  expected  natural  course  of  the  condition  and
treatment placed him in remission such that he  reported  he  had  not
felt better since before December 1980, five months before he  entered
the Air Force.

Furthermore, a determination of service connectedness for purposes  of
the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) compensation is made  by  the
DVA not the Department of Defense (DoD).   The  Air  Force  Board  for
Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) may correct errors in military
records and has no jurisdiction over decisions and documentation  made
by the DVA and does not have the authority to render  a  determination
of  service  connectedness  for  the  purposes   of   DVA   disability
determinations under Title 38.  The fact that the service has  made  a
determination that a  condition  exited  prior  to  service  does  not
automatically mean the DVA will deny benefits since the DVA makes  its
own assessment of the medical evidence regarding  service  connection,
when the condition was incurred and  whether  there  was  a  permanent
service aggravation.  Therefore, based on the  information  above  the
Medical Consultant recommends the requested relief be denied.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
13 April 2005, for review and response.  As of this date, no  response
has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 of timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice.  The  applicant  contends  the
narrative reason for his discharge is preventing  him  from  receiving
disability benefits from the DVA.  After careful consideration of  the
circumstances of this case and the evidence provided by the applicant,
we are not persuaded the narrative reason for separation the applicant
received was in error or unjust.   Applicant’s  contentions  are  duly
noted; however, we agree with the opinion and  recommendation  of  the
AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an  error  or
injustice.  In this respect,  it  appears  the  applicant’s  case  was
properly processed through the Secretary of the  Air  Force  Personnel
Council as a dual action case where a determination was made  that  he
be discharged for a disability which EPTS, rather than discharging him
for misconduct.  The  applicant  contends  he  was  never  treated  or
diagnosed as having this medical condition.  As noted by  the  Medical
Consultant although the  applicant  was  not  formally  diagnosed  and
treated for bipolar disease prior to entering active duty, evidence of
record indicates he was manifesting symptoms of the evolving condition
prior to entering the Air Force.  By his own admission, he  stated  he
experienced symptoms of the medical condition and used  illegal  drugs
before entering active duty.  The  applicant  provides  no  persuasive
evidence the decision made regarding the reason for his  discharge  is
inaccurate or unjust.  With respect to his  contention  regarding  DVA
disability  entitlements,  it  should  be  noted  the  DVA  not   DOD,
determines the service connection  of  a  medical  condition  for  the
purposes of receiving DVA disability compensation.  The fact  the  Air
Force made a determination  that  the  applicant’s  condition  existed
prior to service does not automatically mean the  DVA  will  deny  him
benefits.  The DVA makes its own assessment of  the  medical  evidence
regarding service connection, when  the  condition  was  incurred  and
whether there was permanent service aggravation.  Therefore,  in  view
of the above
and 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2004-02704 in Executive Session on 19 May 2005 under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
                 Ms. Marcia Jane Bachman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Aug 04.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated
                       13 Apr 05.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Apr 05.




                             RICHARD A. PETERSON
                             Panel Chair