RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01431
            INDEX CODES:  108.00, 131.09

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  2 Nov 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His honorable discharge be changed to a medical discharge.

His pay grade be changed to airman second class (A2C).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to his mental state at the time, he did not receive a  chance  for
help nor was he diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.

His separation document should have reflected his pay grade as A2C.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  an   expanded
statement, extracts from his records, and other  documents  associated
with the matter under review.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 14  Nov  61  for  a
period of four years in the  grade  of  airman  basic  (AB).   He  was
promoted to the grade of airman third class (A3C) on 9 Jan 62.

On 26 Oct  62  the  applicant  received  nonjudical  punishment  under
Article 15 for being disorderly in station  on  29  Sep  62.   He  was
reduced from the grade of A3C to AB.  He did not  appeal.   On  20 Dec
62, he was promoted to A3C.

On 14 May 63, the applicant’s  commander  notified  him  that  he  was
recommending the applicant be discharged for  a  significant  lack  of
emotional  stability  and  a  pronounced  apathetic   attitude.    The
applicant was advised  of  his  rights  in  the  matter  and  that  an
honorable discharge would be recommended.

On 5 Jun 63, the evaluation  officer  advised  the  applicant  of  his
rights, including his right to submit a rebuttal and  make  statements
in his own behalf.  The  applicant  did  not  submit  a  statement  of
rebuttal to the discharge action.  The evaluation officer reviewed the
facts of the discharge case and personally interviewed the  applicant.
He recommended the applicant be honorably discharged as an  unsuitable
airman on  the  grounds  of  a  lack  of  emotional  stability  and  a
pronounced apathetic attitude.

On 12 Jun 63, the discharge authority approved  the  discharge  action
and directed the applicant be furnished an honorable discharge.

On 20 Jun  63,  the  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  under  the
provisions of AFR 39-16 in the grade of A3C.  He was credited with one
year, seven months, and seven days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD  recommended  denial  indicating  that  a  preponderance  of
evidence revealed the Physical Disability Division  never  received  a
referral to the PEB and, therefore, could not have given the member  a
medical discharge.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPD evaluation, with attachments,  is  at
Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the  advisory  opinion  and  furnished  a  response
indicating that his Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA)  psychiatrist
supports the fact he was misdiagnosed at the time  of  his  discharge.
Also, at the time of his  discharge,  passive  aggressive  personality
disorder was not considered as a compensable disability, which is  why
the physical disability division received  no  referral  to  the  PEB.
This has now been changed.  If he were discharged today with the  same
misdiagnosis, he would be given a medical discharge.  He  believes  it
is clear that someone dropped the ball and he fell through the cracks.


Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Medical Consultant recommended denial  noting  the  applicant  was
administratively discharged in 1963 for unsuitability due to  passive-
aggressive personality disorder (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual  of
Mental Disorders - I (DSM-I).  By 2001, over thirty  years  after  his
separation,      the      applicant      was      diagnosed       with
schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder.  A DVA psychiatrist has opined
that in retrospect, the behaviors the applicant  manifested  while  in
the service could be attributed to his schizoaffective disorder.   The
DVA has granted service-connected  disability  compensation  based  on
that psychiatrist's opinion and the applicant now requests  change  of
his military records to show disability discharge for schizophrenia.

According  to  the  Medical  Consultant,  personality  disorders   are
enduring patterns of maladjustment  in  the  individual's  personality
structure which are not medically disqualifying for  military  service
but may render the individual unsuitable for further service  and  may
be  cause  for  administrative  discharge  by  the  individual's  unit
commander.  By definition,  a  personality  disorder  is  an  enduring
pattern of thinking, feeling, behaving, and an inner  experience  that
is pervasive and inflexible, is relatively stable over time,  deviates
from  the  individual's  cultural  norms,  and  causes   distress   or
impairment in social and or occupational functioning.  The features of
a personality disorder usually become recognizable during  adolescence
or early adult life.  Personality disorders are frequently exacerbated
by stress and may not cause  significant  problems  or  be  recognized
until stressful circumstances result in distress and  disturbances  in
occupational or  social  functioning.   Manifestations  (symptoms  and
behavior), wax and wane over time depending on the nature  and  degree
of stressors present at any given time.   Although  passive-aggressive
personality  disorder  was  removed  from  the  standard   psychiatric
classification scheme in the  Diagnostic  and  Statistical  Manual  of
Mental Disorders with the publication of version IV (DSM-IV) in  1994,
it was retained in the section for further  research.   Under  DSM-IV,
patients  previously  diagnosed  as   passive-aggressive   personality
disorder (under DSM-I, II, III, and IIIR)  were  to  be  diagnosed  as
personality disorder not otherwise specified when they  did  not  meet
criteria for another specific personality disorder.  Under the DSM-IV,
however, clinicians are still allowed to render this  diagnosis  using
the research criteria.  DSM-IV did not  reclassify  passive-aggressive
personality disorder as  schizophrenia;  a  diagnosis  of  personality
disorder not otherwise specified would have instead been made, also an
unsuiting  diagnosis  warranting  administrative  discharge  and   not
disability discharge.

Schizophrenia is a chronic mental disorder characterized by a loss  of
contact  with  reality,  false  perceptions  (hallucinations,  usually
auditory), false beliefs (delusions),  abnormal  thinking,  restricted
range of emotions, diminished motivation, and  disturbed  occupational
and social functioning. Schizophrenia is believed to have  a  biologic
basis,   occurring   in   individuals   with   neurologically    based
vulnerabilities when exposed to stressful life  events  (for  example:
ending relationships, work stresses, legal difficulties,  etc.).   The
onset of active schizophrenia can be abrupt over  days  to  weeks,  or
slow and insidious over several years.  The majority of schizophrenics
experience  a  prodromal  phase  manifested  by  a  slow  and  gradual
development over months or years of a variety of  signs  and  symptoms
including social withdrawal, loss  of  interest  in  school  or  work,
deterioration in hygiene, outbursts of anger,  and  unusual  behavior.
Schizophrenia shares features with and  may  be  preceded  by  certain
personality disorders including  schizotypal,  schizoid,  or  paranoid
personality disorder.  However,  only  small  numbers  of  individuals
diagnosed  with   these   personality   disorders   actually   develop
schizophrenia, therefore, diagnosis  of  these  personality  disorders
does not equate to a diagnosis of schizophrenia.  In 1963, individuals
with these personality disorders may have been instead  classified  as
schizophrenic or having latent schizophrenia (schizotypal  personality
disorder  diagnosis  appeared  in  DSM-III  in  1980  associated  with
revision in the classification of schizophrenia).  The fact  that  the
applicant was not so diagnosed indicates he did not manifest  symptoms
sufficiently suggestive of schizophrenia.  With the publication of the
DSM-III in 1980, the diagnosis of schizophrenia required the  presence
of evidence of psychosis, a feature specifically documented as  absent
at the time of his in-service psychiatric examination.  The change  in
diagnosis in 1979 to paranoid personality  disorder  (after  a  "major
psychological evaluation") and the applicant’s  report  of  increasing
problems  at  this  time  is  suggestive  in  retrospect  of  evolving
schizophrenia  but  indicates  that  at  the  time  there  were  still
insufficient features to render the diagnosis  of  schizophrenia  even
under the broader classification scheme in use prior to 1980.   Repeat
psychiatric evaluations in 1981 also did not conclude with a diagnosis
of schizophrenia.  This fact supports the conclusion that there was no
diagnostic  error  made  by  the  Air  Force  psychiatrist  while  the
applicant was in service nearly twenty years before.

The Medical Consultant indicated the fact that the applicant has  been
granted service-connected disability from the DVA does not entitle him
to Air Force disability compensation.  The military service disability
systems, operating under Title 10,  and  the  DVA  disability  system,
operating under Title 38, are complementary systems not intended to be
duplicative.  Operating under different laws with a different purpose,
determinations made by the Department of Defense (DoD) under Title  10
and the DVA under  Title  38  are  not  determinative  or  binding  on
decisions made by the other.  The mere fact that  the  DVA  may  grant
service-connected  compensation  ratings   following   separation   or
retirement does not establish eligibility for similar action from  the
Air Force.  The military disability evaluation system, established  to
maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law  under  Title  10,
only  offer  compensation  for  those  diseases  or   injuries   which
specifically rendered a member unfit  for  continued  active  service,
were the cause for termination of their career, and then only for  the
degree of impairment present at  the  time  of  separation.   The  DVA
operates under a separate set of laws and specifically addresses long-
term medical care, social support, and  educational  assistance.   The
DVA is chartered to  offer  compensation  and  care  to  all  eligible
veterans for any service-connected disease or injury without regard to
whether it was unfitting for continued military service.  The  DVA  is
also empowered to reevaluate veterans periodically for the purpose  of
changing their disability awards if their level of  impairment  varies
over time.  Thus, the two systems represent  a  continuum  of  medical
care and disability compensation that starts with entry on active duty
and extends for the life of the veteran.  By law, payment of both  DVA
compensation  and  military  disability  pay   is   prohibited.    The
applicant's condition was an unsuiting  condition,  not  an  unfitting
condition and was not compensable under  the  rules  of  the  military
disability  evaluation  system.   While  it   may   be   possible   to
retrospectively attribute the applicant's in-service or even his  pre-
service behavior to a diagnosis  of  schizophrenia  made  over  thirty
years later, it does not show that a diagnostic error was  made.   The
applicant was appropriately diagnosed in accordance  with  psychiatric
standards at the time which, in fact, were more liberal with regard to
diagnosing schizophrenia than  now.   Newer  diagnostic  criteria  for
schizophrenia  since  1980  require  the  presence  of  psychosis.   A
psychiatric evaluation while the applicant was in the service found no
evidence of psychosis.  A mental health evaluation  in  1979,  sixteen
years after separation, similarly did not  establish  a  diagnosis  of
schizophrenia at a time when the more liberal diagnostic criteria were
still in use.  Psychological symptoms may develop while on active duty
which at that time are not indicative of a specific diagnosis  nor  do
they  merit  disability  evaluation,  but  later,  after   separation,
progress in severity enough to result in  a  specific  diagnosis.   In
retrospect,  it  may  be  possible  to  speculate  that  the  symptoms
experienced while  in  service  were  a  manifestation  of  the  later
diagnosed condition.  While this can be a basis for  granting  service
connection by  the  DVA  under  Title  38,  it  is  not  a  basis  for
retroactive  granting  of  DoD  disability  benefits  under  Title 10.
Similarly, personality disorders diagnosed while on  active  duty  and
forming the basis for administrative discharge for unsuitability  that
are later complicated by the development of related mental illness  is
not a  basis  for  retroactively  granting  DoD  disability  benefits,
especially when separated by many years.

In the Medical Consultant’s view, the action and disposition  in  this
case were proper and equitable reflecting compliance  with  Air  Force
directives that implement the law.

A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is  at  Exhibit
F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a  response  and
additional documentary evidence which are attached at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

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 to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice.

       a.  Regarding  the  applicant’s  request  that  his   honorable
discharge be changed to a medical discharge, we  took  notice  of  his
complete submission in judging the merits of his request.  However, we
do not find it sufficient to override the rationale  provided  by  the
Medical Consultant.  Therefore, in the absence of  evidence  that,  at
time of his separation from active duty, the applicant  was  unfit  to
perform the duties of his rank and office, within the meaning  of  the
law, we agree with the recommendation of the  Medical  Consultant  and
adopt his rationale as the basis for our decision that  the  applicant
has failed to sustain his  burden  of  establishing  he  has  suffered
either an error or an injustice.  Accordingly, we find  no  compelling
basis to recommend favorable action on his request.

      b.  The applicant’s request that his pay  grade  be  changed  to
airman  second  class  was  also  noted.    However,   after   careful
consideration of his request and the available documentation, we  find
insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant any  corrective
action.  The evidence of record indicates the applicant  was  promoted
to the grade of A3C on 9 Jan 62.  On 26 Oct 62, he  was  reduced  from
A3C to AB as a result of nonjudicial punishment under Article  15  for
being disorderly in station on 29 Sep 62.  On 20 Dec 62, he was  again
promoted to A3C, and was subsequently discharged in that grade.  Based
upon the presumption of regularity  in  the  conduct  of  governmental
affairs and without evidence to  the  contrary,  we  must  assume  the
applicant’s grade at the time of his separation  was  the  appropriate
one.  Therefore, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider his
request.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
2005-01431 in Executive Session on 12 Jan 06, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
      Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member
      Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Apr 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 25 Jul 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, undated.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 30 Nov 05.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 7 Dec 05.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, applicant, undated, w/atch.




                                   LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                   Panel Chair