RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00980

            COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  medical  conditions  be  formally  evaluated  to  determine   his
suitability  for  active  duty  or  a  permanent  medical   retirement
retroactive to July 1999.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was discharged medically for conditions that were  never  evaluated
by a medical evaluation board (MEB). An informal  physical  evaluation
board (IPEB) recommended  discharge  based  on  major  depression.   A
formal PEB recommended return to active duty.  The  Secretary  of  the
Air Force (SAF) office sided with the  IPEB,  but  took  into  account
medical conditions he was never evaluated for by the MEB.

In support of his appeal, applicant has provided a personal statement,
DD Form 214, copies of  a  letter  from  SAF/MIBP,  MEB  report,  TDRL
reexamination, PEB, VA ratings, and other  documents  related  to  his
case.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty Army on 19 August 1981.  After three
years of active duty service, he transitioned to  the  Army  Reserves.
On 10 May 1989, he entered active duty in the Air  Force  as  a  staff
nurse.  The applicant was disability discharged on 16  July  2001  for
Major Depressive Disorder with severance pay of 10  percent  after  13
years, 10 months and 17 days of total active military service  in  the
grade of major.

On 20 August 1999, an MEB was completed and  found  him  not  fit  for
worldwide duty with a diagnosis of  Major  Depressive  Disorder.   The
IPEB concurred with the MEB diagnosis, found him  unfit  for  military
service, rated him 30% and directed him to be placed on the  TDRL  and
he concurred.



On 10 April 2001, the IPEB  found  the  applicant  unfit,  recommended
removal from the TDRL and discharge with  severance  pay  of  10%;  he
nonconcurred.  On 23 May 2001, a  formal  physical  examination  board
(FPEB) found him fit and recommended return to duty and the  applicant
concurred.

On 19 June 2001, SAF Personnel Council found him unfit and recommended
he be discharged with severance pay of 10%.  The  summary  stated  the
board  “…  seeking  to  resolve   this   difference   of   recommended
dispositions, noted the member’s most recent health evaluation with 29
positive answers for symptoms of disease and  at  least  four  chronic
diseases requiring medication.”  On 16 July 2001,  the  applicant  was
removed from the TDRL.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

BCMR Medical Consultant recommended denial and stated the  prepondence
of the evidence of the record strongly supports a finding of unfit due
to Major Depressive Disorder in full remission resulting in  discharge
with severance pay.  The evidence of the record also  shows  that  the
applicant’s other medical  conditions  were  not  unfitting  and  were
therefore not ratable or  condensable  under  the  rules  of  the  DoD
disability systems.  Action and disposition in this  case  are  proper
and equitable reflecting compliance with  Air  Force  directives  that
implement the law.

BCMR Medical Consultant complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and stated that  his  case
began when he was sent unaccompanied  to  Korea  and  developed  Major
Depressive  Disorder  that  impacted  his  job  performance.  He   was
subsequently air-evaced back to Wilford Hall Medical Center.   He  got
better for a short period  after  treatment,  but  had  another  major
relapse that prompted the original Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).  At
that time the board recommended TDRL, for Major  Depression,  at  30%.
His other medical conditions were evaluated in  conjunction  with  the
Major Depression and were found to be not disqualifying for service.

He discussed his case with the MEB lawyer and it was recommended that,
since he wanted to return to active duty  in  the  future,  he  should
accept the 30% TDRL. (He was told it was easier to get back on  active
duty from 30% rather than 50%).  He accepted the TDRL and worked  hard
on his treatment He hopes of someday returning to active duty.

After 15 months, he was re-evaluated.  At that time, he was  under  an
unusual amount of stress due to a recent  storm  that  caused  $52,000
worth of damage to his house and personal property.   His  family  was
forced to live in a rental house without their normal  belongings  for
six months while the house was being rebuilt.  He did  not  deny  that
his “29 positive answers” were caused by this stress.

When he received the recommendation to be  discharged  with  severance
pay, he was appalled at the injustice.  The psychiatry “resident” gave
the IFPEB the impression he was better, but not well enough to  return
to active duty.  He appealed the FEB and they recommended  “Return  to
Active Duty.”  When his case was reviewed by  SAF  office,  the  Board
there cited the Major Depression, the “29 positive answers”,  and  his
other “chronic” medical conditions as the reason for medical discharge
with severance pay.  If the original MEB did not  find  these  chronic
conditions disqualifying, then why does the SAF office?

As far as “equitable”, he was paid $119,256.00.  Of  that  amount,  he
had to pay the IRS $25,252.00.   The  remaining  $94,000.00  is  being
taken out of his VA disability check monthly, so  this  severance  pay
was anything but fair or equitable.  After 20  years  of  service  (14
years active and 6 years reserve) he has nothing to show for  it.   If
that is what the BCMR Medical Consultant calls “proper and equitable”,
he like to see what he would say if he was in his situation.

All he is asking for is an open mind in  this  matter.   He  is  still
willing to serve his country and he is requesting re-evaluation of his
conditions. If found to be disqualified, then medically retire him, if
not then return him to active duty.

Applicant’s complete submission 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice.  Evidence has not been  presented
which would  lead  us  to  believe  that  the  applicant’s  disability
processing and the final disposition of his  case  were  in  error  or
contrary to the governing Air Force regulations, which  implement  and
the law.  Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendation  of
the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale
as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has  not  been  the
victim of an error or injustice. In view of the foregoing  and  absent
evidence to the contrary, the  Board  finds  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-
2004-00980 in  Executive  Session  on  24  February  2005,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
                 Mr. John E. Pettit, Member
                 Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member


The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Mar 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Medical Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 6 Jan 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jan 05.




                                   MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                   Panel Chair