RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-01831
                       INDEX CODE:  108.00
                       COUNSEL:  NONE
                       HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His honorable discharge be change to a medical retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His records show he was released for failure to advance.  He  believes
his failure to advance was the result of  a  mental  health  condition
which he believes should have been presented to a  Medical  Evaluation
Board (MEB) and a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for a  determination
of fitness or medical retirement.

In support of his appeal, applicant submits a copy of  his  DD  Forms
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active  Duty,  DD  Form
293, Application for the Review of Discharge or  Dismissal  from  the
Armed Forces of the United States and  documentation  extracted  from
his Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA)  and  military  medical  and
personnel records.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 25 Jun 73, the applicant contracted his initial enlistment  in  the
Regular Air Force.  He was progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of
staff sergeant having assumed the grade effective and with a  date  of
rank of 1 Aug 82.

On 10 Jul  86,  he  was  notified  and  acknowledged  receipt  of  his
ineligibility to reenlist.

On 19 Dec 86,  his  commander  nonrecommended  him  for  promotion  to
technical sergeant  based  on  his  failure  to  progress  in  upgrade
training.   He  acknowledged   receipt   of   the   notification   for
nonrecommendation.

He underwent a mental health evaluation on  29  Feb  84,  due  to  his
inability to advance in upgrade training  and  complaints  of  anxiety
when working around aircraft.  The evaluation revealed no signs  of  a
mental disorder that warranted a referral to the MEB or a  involuntary
administrative action.  The mental health  provider  acknowledged  the
applicant would be a good candidate for cross training.  He  underwent
another mental health evaluation on 30 Jul 86.  He was diagnosed  with
atypical anxiety  disorder.   The  prognosis  for  improvement  around
moving machinery parts was poor and it was suggested he be  considered
for discharge.

On 30 Apr 87, he was honorably  discharged  under  the  Early  Release
Program - Strength Reduction.  He served 13 years,  10  months  and  5
days on active duty.

As of 22 Sep 04, he has received a 100 percent disability rating  with
service connection for his anxiety disorder from the DVA.

On 22 Sep 08, the  applicant  requested  an  extension  to  provide  a
response to the advisory opinion.   On  8  Oct  08,  the  Board  staff
informed the applicant that his request for an extension of time could
not be granted and requested he administratively close his case  until
such time as he was able to proceed.  On 19 Feb 09,  the  Board  staff
informed the applicant that his case had been administratively  closed
and to contact the AFBCMR in writing once he was ready to proceed.

It appears the applicant is requesting his case  be  reopened  via  an
inquiry from his congressional  representative.   In  support  of  his
request a copy of his mental health evaluation was attached.
_________________________________________________________________

AFBCMR MEDICAL CONSULTANT EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s
request for his  honorable  discharge  to  be  changed  to  a  medical
retirement.  The Medical Consultant states the applicant had  anxiety-
related issues that affected  his  ability  to  perform  his  military
duties. Initially, in 1984 there was no diagnosable  mental  disorder;
however, from 1986 and thereafter, the applicant carried  a  diagnosis
of atypical anxiety disorder.  There is no evidence of record that the
applicant's health care providers intended to refer him for processing
through  the  Military  Disability  Evaluation  System  (MDES).    The
applicant's  mental  health   providers   recommended   administrative
discharge  or  cross-training.  Since  the  applicant's  inability  to
function in his occupation likely emanated from his anxiety  disorder,
then it is reasonable to conclude the  applicant's  case  should  have
been referred through the MDES for this ratable and compensable Axis I
clinical diagnosis; a diagnosis which appears to have  contributed  to
cutting short his Air Force career. Had the applicant been
referred through the MDES, he more likely than  not  would  have  been
found unfit for further military service. Based upon the format of the
mental health assessments of record the Medical  Consultant  finds  no
objective criteria upon which to apply  a  likely  disability  rating.
However, it is noted that nineteen months  following  the  applicant's
discharge the DVA rated his anxiety disorder at 0%.  Therefore, it  is
unlikely that the severity of his anxiety  disorder  at  the  time  of
discharge was severe enough to warrant  the  medical  retirement.  The
Medical Consultant acknowledges the applicant  has  not  requested  an
alternative recommendation  for  discharge  with  severance  pay,  but
opines that based upon a preponderance of evidence the applicant would
have  been  discharged  with  severance  pay  with,  at  best,  a  10%
disability rating. The Board and the applicant are reminded  there  is
no quantifiable difference in severance pay  received  for  conditions
rated at 0%, l0%, or 20% under the  MDES.   The  applicant's  atypical
anxiety disorder manifested through a fear of operating near or around
machinery  and  aircraft  should  not  be  considered   an   unsuiting
condition, as would a "fear of flying."   Unlike  the  MDES,  the  DVA
operates under different set of laws (Title 38, United  States  Code),
which authorizes the award of disability compensation for any  service
connected medical condition  without  regard  to  its  impact  upon  a
servicemember's retainability or its impact upon job performance.  The
DVA is empowered to periodically re-evaluate veterans for the  purpose
of adjusting the disability rating award, should  the  severity  of  a
particular medical  condition  vary  over  time.  In  conclusion,  the
Medical Consultant believes the applicant's command officials properly
followed  established  procedures   in   executing   the   applicant's
discharge. There is,  however,  some  question  of  an  error  in  the
decision by medical officials  not  to  pursue  a  medical  basis  for
discharge.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant's evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AFBCMR MEDICAL CONSULTANT EVALUATION:

On 5 Sep 08, a copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant's evaluation  was
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As
of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 waive the failure to timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the  existence  of  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission, to include the  information  provided
by his congressional representative, in  judging  the  merits  of  the
case; however, we find no evidence  of  an  error  or  injustice  that
occurred  in   the   discharge   processing.   After   reviewing   the
documentation submitted and the evidence of record we find no evidence
to reflect the applicant’s anxiety disorder was of  such  severity  to
warrant a medical retirement.   We believe the  applicant’s  chain  of
command properly discharged  the  applicant  in  accordance  with  the
governing instructions.  We note that 19 months after the  applicant’s
discharge the DVA rated his anxiety disorder at 0%.  We  further  note
the applicant currently has a combined DVA disability rating of  100%.
Former servicemembers are authorized treatment from the DVA under  the
provisions of  Title  38,  USC;  which,  allows  the  DVA  to  provide
compensation for servicemembers who incur a service-connected  medical
condition while on  active  duty  and  to  increase  or  decrease  the
disability rating  based  on  the  seriousness  of  medical  condition
throughout the former servicemember’s  life  span.   Whereas  the  Air
Force, under Title 10, USC, rates a member’s condition at the time  of
separation.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we
find no  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-
2008-01831 in Executive Session on 23 Nov 10, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

       , Panel Chair
       , Member
       , Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2008-01831 was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 May 08, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, Medical Consultant, dated
                       3 Sep 08.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Sep 08.
      Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Sep 08.
      Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Oct 08.
      Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Feb 09.
      Exhibit H. Letter, Congressman Wilson, dated 6 Aug 10,
                       w/atchs.





                             Panel Chair