RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02514

	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be medically retired with a disability rating of 30%.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was given an inappropriate and damaging diagnosis of borderline personality disorder without psychiatric testing at Wilford Hall Medical Center (WHMC).

The applicant states that the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) subtracted 20% for the diagnosis of borderline personality disorder from the 30% disability for dysthymia, resulting in a 10% disability percentage.  Her condition could not have been diagnosed without psychiatric testing.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 1 June 1994, the applicant was commissioned in the Reserve grade of captain, Nurses Corps, and entered active duty on 4 July 1994.

A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened on 7 December 2000, and recommended the applicant be referred to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) based on the diagnosis of dysthymic disorder and borderline personality disorder.

On 21 December 2000, an IPEB convened and recommended the applicant be discharged with severance pay, with a compensable rating of 10% (i.e., 30% current rating less 20% contributing/aggravating factors), based on the diagnosis of dysthymic disorder.  The IPEB found the applicant’s borderline personality disorder was not unfitting; however, were it not for the condition, the applicant’s social and industrial adaptability impairment rating would be best described as mild. The applicant did not agree with the findings of the IPEB and her case was forwarded to a Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB).

An FPEB convened on 1 February 2001, and recommended the applicant be discharged with severance pay with a 10% rating based on the diagnosis of dysthymic disorder, mild social and industrial adaptability impairment. The applicant did not concur with the findings of the FPEB, but did not elect to submit a written rebuttal to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC).

On 14 February 2001, the SAFPC determined the applicant should be discharged with severance pay, rated at 10%.

On 16 April 2001, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Reserve under the provisions of AFI 36-3212 (Disability - Severance Pay).  She completed 7 years, 6 months, and 20 days of active service, with an additional 13 years and 1 month of reserve duty in various capacities.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied. The BCMR Medical Consultant states, in part, that the applicant’s concern that a possible personality disorder diagnosis was instrumental in the final determination of her impairment is not borne out by the evidence of record.  While there is strong evidence that she is characterized by one or another personality disorder(s), the decision that the FPEB reached did not use this in arriving at their recommendation, basing their level of impairment, rather, on the improvement in her status over a period of time.  Since all factors of her status were considered at the time of the final disability determination, they cannot agree that she should be considered for a retirement-level impairment of 30%.

The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD recommends the application be denied. AFPC/DPPD states, in part, that the applicant was treated fairly throughout the military disability evaluation process, that she was properly rated under federal disability guidelines, and that she was afforded a full and fair hearing as required under military disability laws and policy.

The AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

DFAS-POCC/DE recommends the application be denied. DFAS-POCC/DE states, in part, that an examination of the applicant’s military pay record shows that she received her total payment of disability severance pay.

The DFAS-POCC/DE evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant states that it is slanderous, negligent, and unconscionable on the part of WHMC that she was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder without the benefit of psychiatric testing.  Borderline personality disorder is often given to females by male psychiatrists without psychiatric testing.  Furthermore, no other psychiatrist or psychologist has given her that diagnosis, even after psychiatric testing.  She contends her military career would still be intact if she had not seen favoritism, suffered harassment, and reverse discrimination from her nurse manager and subordinate.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that relief should be granted.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the offices of the Air Force.  The offices of primary responsibility have adequately addressed applicant’s contentions and we agree with their opinions and recommendations.  We, therefore, adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden that she has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Hence, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

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 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 Docket Number 01-02514 in Executive Session on 19 March 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Aug 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 1 Oct 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 5 Nov 01.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Nov 01.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, DFAS-POCC/DE, dated 5 Feb 02, w/atchs.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Feb 02.
	Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Feb 02.