ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:	BC-2003-03035 COUNSEL:	NONE
HEARING DESIRED:	YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her narrative reason for separation of “Personality Disorder” be corrected.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 6 Jan 03, the applicant was honorably discharged by reason of personality disorder, and was issued an RE code of 2C (involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry- level separation without characterization of service). She served 7 years and 7 months on active duty.

On 1 Mar 04, the applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued in conjunction with her
6 Jan 03 separation, in Item 18, Remarks, was administratively corrected to reflect “separation pay - $9,268.35” rather than “separation pay $3,381.36.”

A similar appeal was considered and denied by the Board on
1 Jun 04. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation, and, the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit F.

The applicant submits a request for reconsideration, contending that she does not have a personality disorder and that she never sought mental health services prior to her military service. The reason for separation has caused her difficulty with finding employment and she is treated as an outcast. The applicant provides a letter from the local Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) medical provider to support her claim.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement and a letter from the DVA medical provider.

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant's most recent request to change the narrative reason for discharge to "Medical Reasons.”

The BCMR Medical Consultant notes the letter from the clinical social worker neither confirms nor denies the co-existence of a personality disorder. It is implicit, however, that  the applicant has not been diagnosed with a personality disorder since leaving military service, by virtue of its exclusion from the letter. The Medical Consultant is not a forensic psychiatrist, but is familiar with the overlapping signs and symptoms of a number of mood disorders that may be characterized under various diagnostic nomenclatures at a given time or by different health care professionals. Therefore, the letter supplied does not invalidate the accuracy of the clinical diagnoses made during the applicant's period of military service. The applicant's twice suicidal gestures by overdosing on an over-the-counter sleeping medication, "as a way of coping with the stress of her duties" were likely significant contributors to acquiring the co-morbid diagnosis of Personality Disorder.

Despite the fact that the applicant was also given an Axis I diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder, the Consultant is of the opinion that the choice of using Personality Disorder as the printed narrative reason for discharge, was likely utilized as a matter of administrative policy at the time, rather than a determination that it represented the predominate diagnostic reason for the applicant's inability to perform her military duties. The DoD has since adjusted its policy such that when an individual's ability to perform military service has been significantly impaired due to an Adjustment Disorder, the individual's DD Form 214 may now reflect this as the actual reason for separation. Therefore, given the choice of using Personality Disorder versus Adjustment Disorder as the reason for separation, the Consultant opines that an Adjustment Disorder would carry a lesser long-term adverse influence upon the applicant's occupational and social  interactions. Therefore, given  the applicant's apparent unimpaired mental functioning during her first period of service (1995-2000), the Board should consider alternatively changing the reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, rendering the benefit of doubt that the applicant's Adjustment Disorder was the principal clinical entity that  interfered  with her military service; however, with no change in re-enlistment code. The applicant is reminded that neither Personality Disorder nor Adjustment Disorder is considered a disability qualifying as a medical reason for separation under provisions of AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, and Separation.

Finally, the Medical Consultant did not address the appropriateness of the decades old policy of affixing a given clinical diagnosis on a veteran's DD Form 214 and recommends this issue be addressed through appropriate administrative and legal channels as necessary. This concern was also partially addressed in the medical advisory of 2003.

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit H.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air  Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 14 Jun 11 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit I).

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting a change in the applicant’s narrative reason for separation. The majority of the Board notes the applicant’s narrative reason and SPD code assigned at the time of her discharge was appropriate; nonetheless, the Department of Defense has since established additional, more specific SPD identifiers to more clearly delineate mental  disorders. The Board majority notes the applicant was diagnosed with both an Adjustment Disorder and Personality Disorder. The BCMR Medical Consultant opines that “Personality Disorder” was likely chosen as the printed narrative reason for discharge as a matter of administrative policy at the time rather than a determination that it represented the predominate diagnostic reason for the applicant’s inability to perform her military duties. Finally, the Board majority notes the BCMR Medical Consultant’s opinion that a narrative reason of Adjustment Disorder rather than Personality Disorder “would carry a lesser long-term adverse influence” upon the applicant’s occupational and social interactions. Since Adjustment Disorder was not available as a valid narrative reason during the period in question, the majority of the Board believes it would be in the interest of equity and justice to change the applicant’s narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority” along with the corresponding SPD code of “KFF.” Therefore, the Board majority recommends the applicant’s record be corrected as indicated below.

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 RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on
6 January 2003, she was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, (Secretarial Authority), with a Separation Program Designation (SPD) code of “KFF.”

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-03035 in Executive Session on 7 February 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

By a majority vote, the members voted to correct the record, as recommended. voted to deny and did not desire to submit a minority report. The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit F.	Record of Proceedings, dated 21 Jun 04, w/exhibits.
Exhibit G.	DD Form 149, dated 30 Nov 10, w/atchs. Exhibit H.	Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant,
Dated 23 May 11.
Exhibit I.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jun 11.