RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03346
		INDEX CODE:  110.02

	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The term “Personality Disorder” was one that came up in haste and without proper consideration.  At the time of his separation, he was being treated for stress and was prescribed medication but not given enough time for it to work prior to his discharge.

Additionally, he was not aware that his DD Form 214 would list the narrative reason for separation of “personality disorder” nor was he given the opportunity to appeal.  The reason for separation on his DD Form 214 has made it extremely difficult to find work.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 19 January 2000, applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of six years in the grade of airman (E-2/Amn).  He received one enlisted performance report with an overall rating of 3. 

On or about 26 August 2001, the applicant was arrested by the local police department for domestic violence.  He was admitted to the Veterans Administration Hospital for making suicidal gestures while in the county jail.

On 12 September 2001, the applicant received a commander-directed mental health evaluation based on his communicating threats against himself and others, showing signs of various mood swings, short tempers, physical assault, domestic violence incidents and disorderly conduct.  They diagnosed the applicant as having a Personality Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified (NOS), as described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV).  A mental disorder so severe that it significantly impaired his ability to function in the military.  The prognosis rendered reflects that he was deemed unsuitable for continued military service on the basis of the above diagnosis.  

On 1 November 2001, the squadron commander initiated administrative discharge action against the applicant for a condition that interferes with military service, specifically a mental disorder.  The specific reason for the proposed action was based on the mental health diagnosis listed above.

On 6 November 2001, after consulting with counsel, applicant submitted statements in his own behalf.  On 9 November 2001, the staff judge advocate found the case file legally sufficient and recommended that the applicant be separated with an honorable service characterization, without probation and rehabilitation (P&R), for a condition that interferes with military service (mental disorder).  On 9 November 2001, the discharge authority directed applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge, without P&R.

On 13 December 2001, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, by reason of personality disorder, and was issued an RE code of 3A [first-term airman who separates before completing 36 months (60 months for a 6-year enlistee) on current enlistment and who has no known disqualifying factors or ineligibility conditions except grade, skill-level, and insufficient TAFMS].  He served 1 year, 9 months and 11 days on active duty.

On 19 Feb 2002, applicant’s DD Form 214 was administratively corrected to reflect “13 November 2001” rather than “13 December 2001” in Item 12b, “1 year, 9 months, and 25 days,” rather than “1 year, 9 months, and 11 days” in Item 12c.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant states the applicant entered active duty on 19 Jan 00, he served satisfactorily as an aircraft hydraulic systems apprentice.  His enlisted performance report documents satisfactory duty performance (overall 3), with strengths including technical ability and military appearance, however, narrative remarks reflects difficulty with communication skills and temper control.  

Applicant was encouraged to seek help from the mental health clinic on 7 Aug 00 for relationship difficulties at work including anger and communication.  The evaluating psychologist indicated concern for the presence of a personality disorder and initiated counseling to improve social skills.  On 24 Sep 00, he was hospitalized for five days in a psychiatric unit for suicidal ideation associated with difficulties with his fiancé.  He was prescribed the antidepressant medication Prozac which he took for two weeks after discharge from the hospital, then discontinued.  He received outpatient psychotherapy following his hospitalization and diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood and “rule out” personality disorder.  Psychological testing in Oct 00 indicated features consistent with personality disorder including impulsivity, shallow social relationships, schizoid mentation, and difficulty with authority.  

He was again evaluated at the mental health clinic on 16 Aug 01, for suicidal and homicidal ideation.  On 23 Aug 01, psychiatry evaluation concluded with a diagnosis of Personality Disorder, NOS (with paranoid and schizotypal features).

On 26 Aug 01, applicant was arrested by civilian authorities for domestic violence and while in jail made a suicidal gesture was hospitalized a second time.  Following release from the hospital, a command-directed mental health evaluation concluded with a diagnosis of Personality Disorder NOS and recommended administrative separation for unsuitability.  At the time of his discharge, applicant contended all of his problems were attributable to his marital difficulties and requested to be retained.

Personality disorders are lifelong patterns of maladjustment in the individual’s personality structure, which are not medically disqualifying or unfitting but may render the individual unsuitable for further military service and may be cause for administrative or disciplinary action by the individual’s unit commander either due to misconduct or unsuitability.  Action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.  It is his opinion that no change in the records is warranted.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 5 March 2004 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).

___________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that his uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, are sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  The Board has been presented with the assertion that the applicant’s reason for separation was made in haste, erroneous, and without proper consideration.  We disagree. Prior to his separation, it appears that the applicant underwent extensive evaluation and treatment, including a period of inpatient hospitalization at a VA medical facility.  His condition was diagnosed as Personality Disorder.  Although, the applicant was able to perform the technical aspects of his job, the records clearly documents a personality disorder that rendered him unable to function in a military environment and unsuitable for continued military service.  In view of the above, we remain unpersuaded that the assessments of his condition prior to his discharge were made in haste, but was the result of considerable observation over time including occupational and marital sources, formal psychological testing, psychiatric interview, and two hospitalizations.  The applicant’s case has undergone an exhaustive review by the BCMR Medical Consultant and there is nothing in the evidence provided by the applicant that would overcome his assessment of the case.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to grant the applicant the requested relief.

___________________________________________________________________

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-2003-03346 in Executive Session on 29 April 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 May 03. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 18 Feb 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Mar 04.