RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02440
            INDEX CODE:

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her record be changed to show she  was  diagnosed  with  posttraumatic
stress (PTSD) disorder secondary to assault and not schizophrenia.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her medical records, Office of Special  Investigation  (OSI)  reports,
memorandums for record, and  a  medical  evaluation  board  (MEB)  all
indicate her paranoia was not developed by schizophrenia but rather by
a PTSD, secondary to unresolved sexual assaults and sexual  harassment
that were circumstantial at the time due to the ongoing investigation.


In  support  of  her  appeal,  the  applicant  has  provided  numerous
memorandums for the record (MFRs) supporting her contention, copies of
two  mental  health  evaluation  briefs,  a  copy  of  a  Freedom   of
Information Act  application,  an  MEB  summary,  and  copies  of  two
(incomplete) enlisted performance reports (EPR’s).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant began her Air Force career on 13 April 2000.  On  25 January
2001, at the request of a friend, she sought psychiatric  services  at
the mental health clinic on Columbus Air Force Base.   A  psychologist
monitored her progress until May 2001  when  she  was  admitted  to  a
psychiatric  hospital  for  observation  following  comments  she  had
listening devices implanted in her  mouth.   She  was  diagnosed  with
Paranoid Personality Disorder and was referred to Keesler  AFB  for  a
complete mental  health  evaluation  and  possible  MEB.   Psychiatric
personnel at Keesler determined she suffered from  severe  stress  and
phase of life issue and she did not meet the criteria for MEB  action.
They recommended she move back to  an  office  environment  with  less
stress and gradual increases in duty.  She was to engage in therapy on
the basis that if no progress were made she would  be  subject  to  an
administrative discharge.  On 27  August  2001,  she  told  her  First
Sergeant she could not handle her duties and wanted to be  reassigned.
She was brought  back  to  the  mental  health  clinic  where  it  was
determined she had not made any significant improvement.   The  mental
health clinic (vehemently) recommended she undergo  an  administrative
discharge.

On 17 April 2002, another mental health evaluator noted  she  had  not
displayed the symptoms she had in the past and  opined  her  delusions
appeared to be stress induced.  The evaluator diagnosed her  with  the
DSM-IV-TR Axis I disorder (309.9 Adjustment Disorder, Unspecified) and
noted her symptoms  were  so  severe  that  her  ability  to  function
effectively in the military environment  was  significantly  impaired.
He recommended an administrative discharge.

On 28 May 2002, an MEB diagnosed her with schizophrenia, paranoid type
and  with  personality  disorder,   not   otherwise   specified   with
personality traits.  The diagnosis of schizophrenia was considered  to
have not existed prior to service (EPTS) but her social and industrial
impairment  was  considered  mild.   The  personality   disorder   was
considered EPTS with minimal impairment.  The MEB recommended  she  be
referred to an IPEB.

The remaining pertinent medical facts are contained in the evaluation
prepared by the BCMR Medical Consultant at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  indicates  a  review  of  the  available
documentation both in the service medical record and from  that  given
by  the  applicant  is  clearly  consistent  with   a   diagnosis   of
schizophrenia and not PTSD.  The applicant  indicates  she  was  raped
while in the service and an MFR from  a  supervisor  in  January  2001
indicates that she made this allegation however there  is  no  medical
documentation that refers to this incident.  Regardless,  if  such  an
assault had occurred, her diagnosis would  remain  the  same  and  her
disability  discharge  would  have  been  unaffected   since   service
connection was established at that time.  The BCMR Medical  Consultant
contends that no change in the records is  warranted,  as  action  and
disposition  in  this  case  were  proper  and  equitable   reflecting
compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.

The Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant provided a  Memorandum  for  Record  (MFR)  wherein  she
reiterates the contentions listed throughout her original application.
 The MFR does not address the Air Force Evaluation.

The applicant’s statement 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.  After a thorough review  of  the
evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded by
her uncorroborated assertion  that  her  diagnosis  should  have  been
posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)  secondary  to  assault  and  not
schizophrenia, in and by itself, sufficiently persuasive  to  override
the   rationale   provided   by   the   AFBCMR   Medical   Consultant.
Consequently, we agree with the  opinion  and  recommendation  of  the
AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his  rationale  expressed  as  the
basis for our decision that the applicant has failed  to  sustain  her
burden of having suffered either an error or injustice.  Therefore, in
the absence of  persuasive  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-
2004-02440 in Executive Session on 7 July 2005, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Ms. Sue A. Lumpkins, Member
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member




The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Jul 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 20 May 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 May 2005.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Jun 2005, w/atch.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair