RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01045
		INDEX CODE:  108.01
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her uncharacterized entry-level separation be changed to reflect that she was honorably discharged due to a medical disability.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was discharged with an entry-level separation after being labeled with a personality disorder. She has dysthymia, a form of depression, which is not a personality disorder, but a psychiatric condition she has no control over.  She was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) while in the service.  She is now service-connected for this condition by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA).  She was looked at as someone who wanted out of the Air Force and not given much in the way of psychiatric treatments or counseling.  She suffered from a medical condition and was not just someone who wanted out of the Air Force.  She was a young woman who was mentally ill and not receiving adequate medical care.  She was treated for depression and continued to suffer depression on a daily basis.  She does not have a personality disorder and never did.

In support of her request applicant provided a personal statement, extracts from her military medical records, documents extracted from her DVA medical records, and documentation associated with her DVA rating decision.  Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 11 Feb 98 in the grade of airman first class.  

On 21 Jul 98, applicant was notified by her commander that he was recommending that she be discharged from the Air Force in accordance with AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.11.1.  The specific reason for this action was she was diagnosed by a clinical psychologist as having an Adjustment Disorder, with mixed emotions.  She was advised of her rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of the notification on that same date.  Applicant waived her right to consult counsel and elected not to submit statements on her own behalf.  In a legal review of the case, the deputy staff judge advocate, found the case legally sufficient.  On 31 Jul 98, the discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed that she be discharged with an entry-level separation without probation and rehabilitation.  Applicant was discharged from the Air Force on 3 Aug 98.  She served 5 months and 23 days on active duty.  

Applicant's DD Form 214 has been administratively corrected to reflect her reason for separation as "Secretarial Authority."

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the applicant’s narrative reason for discharge be changed to Secretarial Authority and that no change to her characterization of service or reenlistment eligibility code is warranted.  The Medical Consultant states her symptoms of Adjustment Disorder were related to a pre-service sexual assault and the stresses of the military environment.  Individuals who develop Adjustment Disorder due to the stress of the routine rigors of military service are not suited for military service and are subject to administrative discharge.  Approximately two months after her discharge she was diagnosed by the DVA with Dysthymia.  However, no subsequent information is available that would suggest that any diagnostic error occurred.  The stress of separation from the military would be expected to produce continued or even worsened symptoms of depressed mood.  The DVA examination was apparently without the benefit of service medical records.  

The DoD uses the term "personality disorder" administratively on the DD Form 214 to include all unsuiting character and behavior disorders including Adjustment Disorder, Personality Disorders, and Impulse Control Disorders.  Since the applicant was not diagnosed with a personality disorder and was further not noted to demonstrate maladaptive traits or misconduct suggestive of a personality disorder, it is inaccurate to list the narrative reason as personality disorder. The Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS concurs with the recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and states that airmen are given entry-level/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous service.  The DoD determined if a member served less than 180 days continuous active service, it would be unfair to the member and service to characterize their limited service.  The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that she is very disturbed at how a film with very graphic sexually, physically, and very abusive scenes were "OK" to be viewed for entertainment in a military classroom.  A person does not have to be raped to find this sort of entertainment offensive.  When she mentioned to the class captain that the film was inappropriate she was made fun of, joked at, and made to feel that sexual abuse is a joking matter.  She excused herself to the bathroom and began to question the morality of the military and broke down and cried.  

An unfortunate event, which occurred before her military career, is being held against her.  It was not the event or the film that disturbed her, but the morality of others which made her full of fear and inner rage.  She was informed by counselors from the hospital that she should be separated from the military.  Applicant asks, what part of that is not medical?  Her complete submission 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 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 are not persuaded by the evidence presented that the uncharacterized entry-level separation received by the former member should be changed.   Uncharacterized separation is not an unfavorable reflection upon the applicant's military service nor should it be confused with other types of separation.  Rather, as was noted by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service is used in those cases where the member has not yet completed six months of service at the time separation proceedings were, for whatever reason, initiated.  Hence, an uncharacterized separation merely connotes the brevity of an individual's membership in the service and may not, in and of itself, be viewed as a defamation of character.  Further, we see no evidence, which would lead us to believe that at the time of her separation, a physical condition existed that would have disqualified her from worldwide military service.  Therefore, we see no reason why she would have been eligible for consideration in the disability evaluation system.  Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of persuasive 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-2003-01045 in Executive Session on 1 Oct 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Apr 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 29 Jul 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 21 Aug 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Aug 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Sep 03. 

                                   
                                   Panel Chair