Bill White, 240.857.3536
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00422
            INDEX CODE:  108.10

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be changed to show that he was not permanently retired for
disability but was found fit for return to  duty  with  an  assignment
limitation code (ALC) of “C”; his retirement date be  changed  from  5
November 2002 to 1 December 2003; and his DD Form 214, Certificate  of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty,  be  modified  to  reflect  the
above changes.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His MEB was conducted during the time he was attending a day treatment
program for anxiety and depression.   His  case  was  referred  to  an
Informal Physical Evaluation Board  (IPEB).   He  disagreed  with  the
findings of the IPEB and requested a  formal  hearing.   His  assigned
legal counsel advised against the formal hearing and  recommended  the
applicant waive his right to  such.   Counsel  emphasized  the  IPEB’s
recommendation of permanent  retirement  for  disability  with  a  30%
compensable rating and advised the applicant to pursue further  health
issues through the Veteran’s Administration (VA).  Counsel advised the
VA would probably  give  him  a  better  compensable  rating.   On  11
September  2002,  confused  to  the  point  of  great   distress,   he
reluctantly signed the letter waiving his right to a  formal  hearing.
Two days later he began undergoing what would  turn  out  to  be  nine
electro convulsive treatments (ECT’s).  During these treatments he was
forced to  complete  out-processing  actions  in  order  to  meet  the
Military Personnel Flight’s (MPF’s)  directed  retirement  date  of  4
November  2002.   He  feels  his  out-processing  timeline  drove  his
treatment rather than his treatment being the priority.   Overall,  he
feels he was forced to make critical career decisions at a  time  when
he was least likely to understand their full impact.  He  underwent  a
pre-retirement  physical  health  assessment  wherein   the   provider
indicated the need for him to follow  up  with  life  skills  for  the
bipolar disorder and his current medications.  He contends he was  not
seen again for these conditions prior to retirement.

He notes that Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3212, Physical Evaluation
for Retention, Retirement, and  Separation,  allows  for  a  delay  in
processing of a members retirement when it could cause a change in the
disability or rating.  He states  there  was  no  post  evaluation  or
prognosis of functional impairment after the final stages of treatment
that may have established or indicate an  improved  clinical  posture.
AFI 36-3212 further states that retention of members may be authorized
under a Limited  Assignment  Status  (LAS)  even  if  they  are  found
physically unfit by a PEB.  Members must meet  specific  criteria  and
must apply for LAS.  His Physical  Evaluation  Board  Liaison  Officer
(PEBLO) and/or his PEB counsel were supposed  to  inform  him  of  the
purpose, policy, or objective of the LAS as a matter of  course  prior
to him making a decision on the  PEB’s  recommendation.   He  contends
neither the PEBLO nor his counsel ever informed him of the LAS option.
 He contends he would have applied for the LAS had he known about it.


Applicant contends the findings and recommendations of the  IPEB  were
not  consistent  with  ratings  in  accordance  with  VASRD  and   DoD
guidelines.  He states the rating he received  does  not  present  the
image of an incompetent person or one who is unable to  satisfactorily
perform job duties.  In fact, the IPEB  remarks  state  his  condition
only prevents him from reasonably performing (emphasis from applicant)
the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating.  As no post treatment
evaluation was  conducted  to  determine  adaptability  for  continued
service, he was not allowed to get better and return  to  duty,  which
contradicted the reason he was seeking help.  He contends  the  rating
he received would support the fact that an individual may very well be
able to reasonably perform duties associated with their office, grade,
rank, or rating. The rating also suggests a person could perform  very
well under a limited assignment status at worst.  He reminds the Board
that this rating was applied when he was still in active treatment and
was based on reasonable medical opinion  at  the  time  with  no  post
treatment analysis.

He contends he should  have  been  considered  for  placement  on  the
Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) as opposed to  the  permanent
retired list where he would have been evaluated after 18 months and  a
more informed decision could have been made based on post-treatment.

In support of his  appeal,  the  applicant  has  provided  a  personal
statement, copies of his MEB, his  IPEB,  his  health  assessment  for
retirement, a memo from his commander to the IPEB, a request for a one
month extension enabling him to meet the Service Commitment Date (SCD)
required for him to keep his SMSgt rank, his retirement order and  his
DD Form 214.

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


_________________________________________________________________




STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 19  November  1982  and
was progressively promoted to the grade of SMSgt with a date  of  rank
(DOR) of 1 December 2001.  On 20 August 2002, he met a MEB wherein  he
was diagnosed with Bipolar  Affective  Disorder,  Type  II,  obsessive
compulsive  and  narcissistic   traits,   Hypertension   by   history,
Occupational, psychosocial and phase of life issues.  The MEB referred
his case to the IPEB.  On  26 August  2002,  the  IPEB  found  he  was
suffering  from  Bipolar  disorder,  Type  II,  Definite  Social   and
Industrial Adaptability.  The  IPEB  noted  his  condition  would  not
likely improve  over  the  next  several  years  preventing  him  from
reasonably performing the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating.
 The IPEB found him unfit and recommended he  be  permanently  retired
with a 30% compensable disability rating.

On 4 September 2002, applicant  formally  disagreed  with  the  IPEB’s
recommendation  and  requested  a  Formal  PEB  (FPEB)  hearing.    On
12 September 2002, he signed a memorandum to the president of the FPEB
indicating his acceptance of the IPEB’s recommendations and  requested
a waiver of his right to an FPEB hearing.  On 4 November 2002, he  was
permanently retired due to physical disability after serving 19 years,
11 months, and 16 days.  He was retired in the grade of senior  master
sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD indicates a review of the records reveals the applicant  had
a MEB at Tinker AFB on 20 Aug 02, at the time his medical records were
available, reviewed and used when the medical narrative  was  written.
On 26 Aug 02 a PEB reviewed the MEB package and recommended the member
be permanently retired due to physical disability. The member rebutted
the recommended findings but later  waived  his  right  to  a  hearing
before the FPEB and accepted the findings of the PEB. DPPD  recommends
denial and contends the evidence reflects that no error  or  injustice
occurred  during  the  member’s  disability   process.    The   proper
documentation was noted on his DD Form  214  in  accordance  with  the
provisions of military disability laws and policy.

DPPD’s complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant  states  the  Air  Force  advisory’s  lack   of   discussion
pertaining to his claims regarding  his  personnel  records  show  the
actions taken to retire him were ignored  and  not  fully  considered.
Regarding his medical  records,  he  notes  the  advisory  states  his
medical records were reviewed.  He contends the Air  Force  could  not
have reviewed his  medical  records  in  their  entirety,  other  than
MEB/PEB documents, as his records are maintained  at  the  Tinker  AFB
clinic and have not been retired as yet to St Louis.  He  contends  no
one outside the clinic has checked out  his  records  for  review  and
therefore surmises that statement seems to be rubber-stamped.

He is troubled by the fact that the PEB findings  note  he  was  unfit
because of physical  disability  yet,  the  same  findings  notes  his
disability as a mental disorder.  He contends there  was  no  physical
disability  as  he  had  completed  all   physical   fitness   testing
requirements.  The crux of the advisory seems to be the fact  that  he
initially rebutted the PEB’s findings and later agreed with them.   He
explains that Bipolar disorder and its depressive episodes  contribute
to  an  inability  to  think  clearly.   Further,  difficulty   making
decisions and confusion can be very prominent.  This  is  particularly
true at the most depressed stages which was the case for him  when  he
was making career and life-binding decisions.

Applicant’s 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 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.   While  the  timing  of  the  medical  retirement
process may not have favored the applicant, the preponderance  of  the
evidence reflects that no  error  or  injustice  occurred  during  his
disability process at the time of his separation and that his DD  Form
214 was properly documented  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of
military laws and policy.  Therefore, in the absence  of  evidence  to
the contrary, we find no compelling basis to  recommend  granting  the
relief sought in this application.

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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-00422 in Executive  Session  on  27  September  2005,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
      Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
      Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Jan 05.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 8 Sep 05, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 May 2005.




                                   MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                   Panel Chair