RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00064
							INDEX CODE 110.02
							COUNSEL: No 

							HEARING DESIRED: No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reason for her discharge, “Personality Disorder,” be removed from or changed on her DD Form 214.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

A DD Form 214 should not document someone’s mental health diagnosis. As long as the existing narrative reason is a permanent part of her discharge record, she will be unable to support herself or attain employment in fields of her choosing and qualification. This unjust act by the Air Force will hinder her forever and cause her further grief.

Her complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 1 May 96. During the period in question, she was assigned as a special agent to the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) at Holloman AFB, NM.  The overall rating of her performance reports were: 5, 5, and 4.

Following her supervisor and co-worker’s observations of what appeared to be suicidal ideation, persistent mental health issues and depression, the applicant was seen for a command-directed evaluation on five occasions between 29 Aug 00 and 22 Sep 00.  The 22 Sep 00 mental health evaluation diagnosed both an adjustment disorder with depressed mood and borderline personality disorder.  Her personality disorder was found severe enough to impair her function in the military and discharge was recommended with mental health care continued after separation.

As a result, the applicant’s commander notified her on 17 Oct 00 of his intent to recommend honorable discharge for a condition interfering with military service. After consulting counsel, the applicant opted not to submit statements. On 19 Oct 00, the case was found legally sufficient.

The applicant was honorably discharged in the grade of senior airman for personality disorder on 15 Nov 00 with 4 years, 6 months and 15 days of active service.  She received a separation program designator (SPD) code of “JFX” and a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2C” (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant notes that while the present narrative reason does reflect the underlying reason for her discharge, it may result in prejudgment and be unduly restrictive in the job market. On the other hand, this information could conceivably preclude inappropriate job placement.  The applicant could just as well have received the same type of discharge for the adjustment disorder, a much less inflammatory diagnosis for future reference. The Consultant recommends that the narrative reason be changed to “Conditions that Interfere with Military Service, Mental Disorders,” leaving her SPD and RE codes unchanged.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Assistant NCOIC, Separation Procedures Section, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, agrees that the narrative reason does reflect the underlying reason for her discharge and does affect her ability to gain employment.  The SPD dictates the verbiage of the narrative reason.  For this reason, her narrative reason should be changed to “Conditions Not a Disability” with an SPD code of “JFV.”

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 13 Apr 01.  This office has received no additional comments from the applicant.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.	The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.	The application was timely filed.

3.	Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. After weighing the available evidence and the recommendations of the Medical Consultant and the Air Force, a majority of the Board concludes that the narrative reason should be amended to one with no reference to medical problems. While the existing SPD code and narrative reason may correctly reflect the underlying reason for the applicant’s discharge, in this case it also may be unnecessarily inflammatory and restrictive in her efforts to help herself. The majority notes that the applicant’s personality disorder was diagnosed as “borderline.” Further, it seems reasonable that the adjustment disorder, which made her unable to function in the military environment, might have no affect in civilian employment. The Board majority believes the contested narrative reason may continue to penalize the applicant and the alternative narratives suggested by the Medical Consultant and AFPC/DPPRS could still possibly raise qualms and questions in the minds of most prospective employers. Therefore, the Board majority believes the applicant’s narrative reason for discharge should be changed to the more nonspecific narrative reason of “Secretarial Authority,” and this we so recommend.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that, on 15 Nov 00 she was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, “Secretarial Authority,” and issued a separation program designator code of “JFF.”

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 5 June 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	            Panel Chair
	            Member
	            Member

Mr.   and Mr.   voted to correct the records, as recommended.  Ms.   voted to deny and has submitted a Minority Report, which is at Exhibit F. The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Dec 00, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 
			      16 Feb 01.

   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 22 Mar 01.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 13 Apr 01.
   Exhibit F.  Minority Report.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair 

AFBCMR 01-00064

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to        , be corrected to show that, on 15 November 2000, she was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, “Secretarial Authority,” and issued a separation program designator code of “JFF.”

                                                                       

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR 
                                                 CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

SUBJECT:                             , AFBCMR Docket No. 01-00064

	The applicant requests that the narrative reason for her discharge, “Personality Disorder,” be removed from or changed on her DD Form 214.  The Air Force recommended that the narrative reason be revised to the less inflammatory “Conditions Not a Disability” so that the applicant would not be subjected to potential bias when seeking employment.  In Executive Session on June 5, 2001, my colleagues went one step further, concluding that the reason for discharge should be the more innocuous “Secretarial Authority.”  Their rationale was that, since the applicant’s personality disorder had been diagnosed as borderline, and “Conditions Not a Disability” could still very likely raise questions, the better solution would be to remove any reference to a medical problem.  In this way, the applicant’s desire to be shielded from adverse scrutiny would be better served.

	While the AFBCMR Medical Consultant also recommended that the narrative reason be changed, he included a cogent point in his discussion that I believe should be considered.  The Consultant indicated that the present narrative reason might be unduly restrictive and prejudicial in the job market.  However, he went on to say that, “. . . the same information could conceivably preclude inappropriate job placement [my emphasis] if openly revealed to prospective employers.”  Suitability was an important consideration with regard to the applicant continuing on active duty. It can also be an important consideration in the employment process.  The type of information the applicant desires to mask, if it is job related, may interfere with or prevent effective service in the position applied for or employed in, or may jeopardize an organization’s accomplishment of its duties or responsibilities as it did while the applicant was on active duty.  This is consistent with the premise that the only factors prospective employers should be considering are those that are job related.  Those that want the narrative reason for the applicant’s discharge changed do not seem to believe that.  This is precisely the basis for my concern and why I disagree with the decision of the Board majority.  

	The applicant states the narrative reason precludes her from attaining employment in all fields for which her education, training and experience qualify her, but provides no information as to whether she has been denied employment because of the narrative reason.  However, based on the available documentation, I am unwilling to change her narrative reason for her discharge unless there is evidence that prospective employers are considering non-job related criteria. 

	If the applicant is unable to obtain any gainful employment with the current narrative reason, I would be willing to reconsider my decision.  In the absence of such evidence, however, I believe the applicant’s record should remain unchanged and recommend this appeal be denied.  

									
									Panel Chair