RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02430
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  8 Feb 06


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form  214  be  amended  in  Block  28,  “Narrative  Reason  for
Separation,” to read  “anxiety  disorder,”  rather  than  “personality
disorder.”

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The fact  that  his  DD  Form  214  reflects  he  was  discharged  for
“personality disorder” has caused him extreme financial hardship.   He
has since been evaluated by the Department of Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)
and has been granted service  connected  disability  for  an  “anxiety
disorder.”

In support of his appeal, applicant provides a copy of his DVA related
medical paperwork.

The applicant’s complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty  on  26  Apr  00,  and  received  an
initial enlistment bonus in the amount of $13,000.  On 21 Apr 03,  his
squadron commander notified him he was recommending his discharge from
the Air Force for a condition that interferes with  military  service,
specifically, an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and  depressed
mood and borderline personality disorder.  The  commander  recommended
the applicant receive an honorable discharge.

The reason for the commander’s action  was  the  result  of  a  mental
health evaluation  that  determined  the  applicant  suffered  from  a
disorder so severe that his ability to  function  effectively  in  the
military environment was significantly  impaired.   Additionally,  the
commander considered actions taken against the applicant for a  number
of incidents and offenses.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of  the
commander’s intended action and waived his right  to  consult  counsel
and to submit statements in his behalf.  The  proposed  discharge  was
found legally sufficient by the wing staff judge advocate.  On 23  Apr
03, the wing commander directed that the applicant be  separated  from
the Air Force for a condition that interferes with  military  service,
specifically, an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and  depressed
mood and borderline personality disorder.  It was also  directed  that
he be issued an honorable discharge.  The applicant was discharged  on
24 Apr 03 with an  honorable  discharge.   The  narrative  reason  for
discharge reflected on his DD Form 214 was “Personality Disorder.”

The applicant received two enlisted  performance  reports  during  his
time in the Air Force, one with an overall rating of “5” and a second,
referral report, with an overall rating of “3.”  The  referral  report
was due to a marking of “1” in the  performance  factor  dealing  with
off/on duty conduct.  The  referral  report  also  contained  comments
related to the applicant’s disciplinary problems.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s
request to change the narrative reason  for  his  discharge.   Members
discharged for unsuitability due to Personality Disorder or Adjustment
Disorder are required to reimburse the  government  for  the  unearned
portion of enlistment bonuses.  Members discharged for disability such
as Anxiety Disorder are not required to reimburse the  government  for
such bonuses.  The applicant contends his  post-service  diagnosis  of
Anxiety Disorder not otherwise specified is the correct diagnosis  for
symptoms he experienced while in service and requests  change  of  his
discharge documents to  reflect  discharge  based  on  this  unfitting
condition in order to avoid recoupment of the unearned portion of  his
enlistment bonus.

Personality  disorders  or  maladaptive  personality  traits  are  not
medically disqualifying or unfitting but  may  render  the  individual
unsuitable  for  further  military  service  and  may  be  cause   for
administrative action by the individual’s unit commander.  Personality
disorders are  considered  significant  risk  factors  for  subsequent
development of mental illness including depression, bipolar  disorder,
anxiety disorder, and schizophrenia.

Adjustment Disorder is characterized by marked psychological  distress
in response to identifiable stressors that overcome  the  individual’s
ability  to  cope  and  is  frequently  associated  with   significant
impairment  in  social  and  occupational   functioning.    Adjustment
Disorders when severe enough  are  unsuiting  for  continued  military
service and cause for administrative discharge.

In this case, a three month gap in mental health care between Jan  and
Mar 03 appears to indicate that symptoms were episodic in response  to
occupational stressors rather than a prolonged condition regardless of
the presence of stressors favoring Adjustment  Disorder  over  anxiety
disorder.  The applicant’s diagnosis is complicated by the presence of
personality disorder, which was  viewed  as  the  principle  diagnosis
producing the majority of  his  symptoms  that  interfered  with  duty
performance.

Following  discharge  from  military  service,   the   applicant   has
experienced persistent and worsening symptoms with  various  diagnoses
suggesting a pattern of an evolving mental illness that began while in
service.  Despite the varying  diagnoses,  he  has  been  consistently
diagnosed with Personality  Disorder  as  a  major  component  of  his
problem.  The most recent evaluation  rendered  diagnoses  of  Anxiety
Disorder  not  otherwise  specified  and  Personality   Disorder   not
otherwise specified.  The BCMR Medical Consultant  does  not  conclude
that the evidence in the service medical  records  support  change  of
records to show disability discharge for anxiety  disorder  and  notes
that the predominant diagnosis interfering with duty at the  time  was
the non-compensable personality disorder.

The BCMR Medical Consultant notes that although review of the  records
does not demonstrate an error, the Board may consider granting  relief
of the requirement for recoupment if it finds evidence of an injustice
in this complex case.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A response to the Air Force evaluation was provided on the applicant’s
behalf from a Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) staff psychiatrist.
 The staff psychiatrist provides a summary of the applicant’s  current
working diagnoses.  Based on his review  of  the  applicant’s  medical
file, he notes that the applicant’s problems in the Air  Force  seemed
to surface in Jan 02 and continued until his  separation.   He  states
the applicant reported the occurrence of a  Closed  Head  injury  with
transient loss of consciousness sometime in 2001 and that he did  seek
medical  attention  several  days  later.   The   staff   psychiatrist
indicates that it appears that the development of disciplinary  issues
occurred following this and is very likely related to the head injury.
 He further notes that a brain MRI obtained on Jul 05 was  essentially
within normal limits, though this does not rule out possible post-head
injury  effects.   He  states  that  neurological  testing  has   been
requested.

The DVA staff psychiatrist opines that the  available  information  on
the  applicant  is  consistent  with  the  conclusion  that  mood  and
behavioral problems developed following a closed head injury while  he
was  on  active  duty  in  the  Air  Force.   An  underlying   genetic
predisposition to mood swings may have been an  additional  factor  or
unmasked as a result.

It is the DVA staff  psychiatrist’s  best  medical  opinion  that  the
behavioral changes leading to  the  applicant’s  discharge  were  most
likely secondary to the reported closed head injury.  He requests  the
Board consider favorable action on  the  applicant’s  request  not  to
repay the enlistment bonus he received.  He also opines that it  would
seem reasonable to consider establishing service  connection  for  the
applicant’s head injury and psychiatric residual.

The complete 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the  existence  of  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion  and  recommendation  of  the  BCMR
Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the  primary  basis  for
our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an  error
or injustice warranting a change  in  the  narrative  reason  for  his
discharge  from  the  Air  Force.   Additionally,  we  considered  the
recommendation of the DVA staff psychiatrist  that  the  applicant  be
granted service connection for  a  closed  head  injury.   However,  a
review of the available medical records  does  not  reveal  sufficient
information to  support  such  a  determination.   Therefore,  in  the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting this portion of the relief requested.

4.  Notwithstanding the above determination, we  note  that  the  BCMR
Medical Consultant has stated that following discharge  from  military
service,  the  applicant  has  experienced  persistent  and  worsening
symptoms with various diagnoses suggesting a pattern  of  an  evolving
mental illness that began while he was in service.  We also note  that
the DVA staff psychiatrist has indicated the applicant’s problems  are
“very likely” related to the closed head  injury.   While  we  do  not
believe the available evidence supports granting the requests  already
discussed, we believe there is enough uncertainty in  the  applicant’s
case that requiring him to repay the enlistment bonus could be  viewed
as an injustice.  As such, in the interest of equity and injustice, we
believe  the  applicant’s  debt  should  be  waived.   Therefore,   we
recommend his records be corrected as indicated below.

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of  the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on  20 April  2003,  he
applied for and competent authority granted a waiver of the  recoupment
of the unearned portion of the initial enlistment bonus he received  in
conjunction with his 26 April 2000 enlistment.

_______________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered  Docket  Number  BC-2004-
02430 in Executive Session on 21 September 2005, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
      Mr. Charlie E. Williams, Jr., Member
      Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member

All  members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Jul 05, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant,
                 dated 30 Jun 05.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Jul 05.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, DVA, dated 6 Sep 05, w/atchs.




                                   JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR BC-2004-02430


MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the
authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat
116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that on
20 April 2003, he applied for and competent authority granted a
waiver of the recoupment of the unearned portion of the initial
enlistment bonus he received in conjunction with his 26 April 2000
enlistment.




            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency