RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00786
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  XXXXXXXX
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  He be granted a medical retirement with 19 years of service. 

2.  His Bipolar disorder be rated accordingly.  

3.  In the alternative, the applicant requests one year of 
constructive service credit to complete 20 years of service for 
retirement eligibility.

4.  In a letter, dated 13 Aug 13, the applicant amended his 
request to be credited with five years of constructive service 
credit so that he could qualify for a 20 year length of service 
retirement rather than one year of constructive service credit.

5.  He be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List 
(TDRL).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The applicant’s counsel states that he should have been 
medically retired because he had a debilitating mental disorder 
that would have precluded his continued active duty service.

His decision to resign rather than continue with the Medical 
Evaluation Board (MEB) is consistent with his previous exhibited 
grandiose and delusional behavior and should be overlooked.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a memorandum 
from counsel; copies of supporting information from his medical 
records; Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), and various other 
supporting documents.

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

________________________________________________________________



STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 23 Jun 09, the applicant submitted a voluntary request to 
separate upon completion of his Active Duty Service Commitment 
(ADSC).

On 14 Dec 09, the applicant’s request to change his projected 
separation date to 13 Feb 10 was approved.

On 13 Feb 10, the applicant resigned his Regular Air Force 
commission, with a reason for separation of completion of 
required active service.  He was credited with 15 years, 
8 months and 13 days of active duty service and 3 years, 
11 months and 3 days of inactive service. 

________________________________________________________________

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

BCMR Medical Consultant recommends granting the applicant one 
year of constructive service credit; or in the alternative, 
placing the applicant’s name on the TDRL so his present 
functional status could be assessed.  

The Medical Consultant notes that this appears to be the first 
psychiatric admission for the applicant, there is nothing in the 
records to question a condition existing prior to service and 
the applicant has greater than 8 years active duty service. 

Rather than proceed with an MEB, the applicant chose to 
voluntarily separate from the Air Force.  This decision to 
resign, rather than proceed with an MEB, is consistent with the 
grandiose and delusional behavior the applicant exhibited in the 
past.  His resignation decision is consistent with someone who 
has reached a stable platform and made a conscious, logical and 
rational decision not to proceed with an MEB.  However, it is 
unclear as to whether the applicant was taking medication or 
participating in therapy at the time of his decision to 
voluntarily separate.  The applicant’s medical provider notes 
that the applicant was not willing to participate in therapy or 
medication due to his denial of a psychiatric disorder and that 
his prognosis would be fair to good depending on his compliance 
with treatment.

The applicant has not met the burden of proof of error or 
injustice to warrant a “Permanent Medical Retirement.”  In 
addition, his decision to voluntarily resign was made under 
conditions of stress and he may not have fully realized the 
implications of his decision.  With this in mind and the stellar 
military record of this applicant, the Medical Consultant 
recommends, for fair and equitable reasons, he be granted one 
year of constructive credit relief so as to be entitled to 
retirement.

The Medical Consultant recommends that the applicant contact the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) which operates under a 
different set of laws (Title 38, U.S.C.), with a different 
purpose.  The DVA is authorized to offer compensation for any 
medical condition determined service incurred, without regard to 
[and independent of] its demonstrated or proven impact upon a 
service member’s retainability, fitness to serve, narrative 
reason for separation, or the intervening or transpired period 
since the date of separation.  With this in mind, Title 38, 
U.S.C., which governs the DVA compensation system, was written 
to allow awarding compensation ratings for conditions that were 
not unfitting for military service or at the time of separation.  
This is the reason why an individual can be found fit for 
release from military service and yet sometime thereafter 
receive a compensation rating from the DVA for service-
connected, but militarily non-unfitting conditions.  The DVA is 
also empowered to conduct periodic re-evaluations for the 
purpose of adjusting the disability rating awards (increase or 
decrease) as the level of impairment from a given service 
connected medical condition may vary (improve or worsen, 
affecting future employability) over the lifetime of the 
veteran.

The complete Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, stating, in part, that the DD Form 
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, is 
the official source document of an airman's service and they 
found no error in the preparation of the applicant's 214.  The 
applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice 
to warrant the requested change to his separation code.  Based 
on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, 
the discharge to include his separation code as reflected on his 
DD Form 214 was in accordance with the governing instruction.

DPSOR notes that in regards to the applicant's type of 
separation, officers may apply to separate when they complete 
their Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC).  To qualify, an 
officer's Date of Separation (DOS) must fall on or after the 
member's Active Duty Service Commitment Date (ADSCD) and no 
earlier than six months from the date of application.

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________



APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant, through counsel concurs with the BCMR Medical 
Consultant's analysis and recommendation to grant relief based 
upon principles of fairness and equity.  However, he believes 
some clarification is in order.  In regards to the applicant’s 
service time, the applicant was honorably discharged with 
15 years, 8 months, and 13 days of active service and 3 years, 
8 months, and 3 days of inactive service (reflecting his time as 
an USAF Academy cadet).  The DPSOR advisory opinion correctly 
notes these figures but combines them as "satisfactory service" 
totaling 19 years and 7 months.  To clarify, it appears that the 
applicant’s time as a cadet does not count toward his military 
retirement and the applicant would therefore need five years of 
constructive credit to be eligible for a military retirement.  
So he agrees that the Medical Consultant’s alternative form of 
relief may be the most appropriate here-placement on the TDRL. 
Consistent with this recommendation, the applicant respectfully 
requests placement on the TDRL and any and all accordant back 
pay and allowances.

In the alternative, the applicant requests five years of 
constructive credit that would entitle him to a military 
retirement.  As the Medical Consultant noted the applicant’s 
decision to voluntarily resign, was made under conditions of 
stress and he may not have fully realized the implications of 
his decision.  The Medical Consultant’s analysis of his 
exemplary record and the principles of fairness and equity that 
govern the Board should provide a sufficient basis for granting 
constructive credit as an alternative form of relief.

The complete response is at Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________

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 to warrant a 
permanent medical retirement or to grant constructive service 
credit to allow for a length of service retirement.  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.  
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find 
no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this 
application.

4.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting 
partial relief.  While we note the comments of the Air Force 
Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR), the BCMR Medical 
Consultant has provided a thorough review of the applicant’s 
case and has adequately addressed the issues presented, and we 
are in agreement with his recommendation.  While the applicant 
was being assessed medically to determine the severity of his 
mental disorder, he elected to resign his commission and 
separate from the Air Force.  In our view this decision was 
premature, therefore, we agree with the BCMR Medical 
Consultant’s alternative form of relief that the applicant’s 
name be placed on the TDRL so that he can be properly assessed 
and a determination made as to what his final disposition should 
be.  Subsequently, the BCMR Medical Consultant advised the Board 
that the diagnosis in the applicant’s case is Bipolar I Disorder 
and recommended a 50 percent disability rating.  In arriving at 
our decisions, we are keenly aware that the courts have held 
that correction boards have an abiding moral sanction to 
determine, insofar as possible, the true nature of an alleged 
injustice and take steps to grant thorough and fitting relief.  
Accordingly, we recommend the applicant’s record be corrected to 
the extent indicated below.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to APPLICANT are corrected to show that:

	a.  On 12 Feb 10, he was found unfit to perform the duties 
of his office, rank, grade or rating by reason of physical 
disability incurred while entitled to receive basic pay; that 
the diagnosis in his case was Bipolar I Disorder, most recent 
episode manic severe with psychotic features; VASRD Code 9432, 
with a disability rating of 50 percent; that the disability is 
temporary; that the disability was not due to intentional 
misconduct or willful neglect; that the disability was not 
incurred during a period of unauthorized absence; that the 
disability was not received in line of duty as a direct result 
of armed conflict.

	b.  On 13 Feb 10, he was not discharged from all 
appointments; but rather, on that day, his name was placed on 
the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL).

	c.  Since this record correction is retroactive to 2010, the 
member is now overdue for a TDRL re-evaluation under 10 U.S.C. 
1210 and AFI 36-3212.  Such re-evaluation must occur as soon as 
practicable and be performed by a psychiatrist or PhD-level 
psychologist.  The re-evaluation must conclude 


with a 5-Axis diagnosis and the applicant’s level of impairment 
in civilian social and industrial adaptability.  The results of 
the re-evaluation must be forwarded to the Air Force Board for 
Correction of Military Records at the earliest practicable date 
so that all necessary and appropriate actions may be completed.  

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-00786 in Executive Session on 17 Dec 2013, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Jan 13, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, 
                dated 28 May 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 21 Jun 13.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 13.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 13 Aug 13.




                                   Panel Chair