RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01691 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His disability discharge, with severance pay (DWSP), be changed 
to a retirement. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His diagnosis of “Bipolar disorder” shortened his career and he 
was well on his way to a 20 year career. He had completed over 
12 years of service at the time of his discharge. 

 

In Nov 07, his Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) medical 
provider took him off all psychotropic medications and told him 
he no longer needed to be seen by their clinic. He then noticed 
that the medical documentation reflected that he had been 
misdiagnosed by the military because of an abrupt withdrawal 
from “Paxil high dose.” 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant submits copies of his 
DVA documents, progress notes, two DD Forms 214, Certificate of 
Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued in conjunction 
with his 25 Apr 85 separation to accept a commission, and his 
24 Jan 00 DWSP. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

Based on the available record, on 6 Dec 99, the Informal 
Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB), diagnosed the applicant with 
Bipolar Disorder, Mild Social and Industrial adaptability 
impairment; History of GERD and history of hypertension, and 
alcohol abuse and narcissistic traits. They recommended the 
applicant be discharged with a compensable disability rating of 
10 percent. On 8 Dec 99, the applicant concurred with the 
IPEB’s recommendation. On 24 Jan 00, the applicant was 
honorably discharged with a compensable disability rating of 


10 percent, with severance pay. He was credited with 12 years, 
4 months and 14 days of active duty service. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, stating, in part, that based on 
the documentation on file in the master personnel record, the 
discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive 
requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the 
discretion of the discharge authority. DPSOR concurs with 
DPSIPV's calculation of the applicant's creditable service time 
reflecting that he was ineligible for retirement at the time of 
his discharge. 

 

The law that governs retirement of an enlisted member is 
Title 10 USC, Section 8914, Twenty to Thirty Years: Enlisted 
Members: Under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of 
the Air Force, an enlisted member of the Air Force who has at 
least 20, but less than 30, years of service computed under 
section 8925 of this title may, upon his request, be retired. 

 

According to the calculations provided by HQ AFPC/DPSIPV, the 
member only has 12 years, 4 months and 14 days of Total Active 
Federal Military Service. 

 

The complete DPSOR evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 26 Jul 12 for review and comment within 30 days. 
As of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit D). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, 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 we note the applicant’s contentions that had he not been 
misdiagnosed, he would have more than likely completed enough 
years of service to afford him a military length of service 
retirement at 20 years. In addressing the applicant’s request 
for a length of service retirement, in lieu of the medical 
discharge he received, the DVA records reflect their evaluation 
was rendered some seven years after his separation. In this 
respect, the applicant is advised that diagnoses and opinions 
resulting from a given set of psychiatric symptoms and 
stressors, as reported by a patient at a given point in time, 
may change over time. Consequently, different mental health 
providers may reach different diagnostic conclusions, even when 
given the same set of clinical symptoms from the same patient, 
during the approximate same period of time. Absent adequate DVA 
documentation that explains the allegation of diagnostic error, 
IAW 38 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), Sections 4.7 and 
4.125, the mere statement of an opinion of a service diagnostic 
error is insufficient to invalidate the accuracy or 
appropriateness of the conclusions reached by equally competent 
mental health authorities most familiar with the applicant’s 
pattern of behavior at the time of his discharge. In view of 
the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we 
find no 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 the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2012-01691 in Executive Session on 29 November 2012, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Mar 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 11 Jul 12, w/atch. 


 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Jul 12. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair