RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01870 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The following changes be made to his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty: 1. His narrative reason for separation (Personality Disorder) and separation code (JFX) be removed from his record. 2. His reentry (RE) code be changed. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He has provided statements from two different Department of Veteran’s Affairs (DVA) doctors who have stated he does not have a personality disorder. The codes are preventing him from gaining employment. In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214, and VA mental health records from Fargo, ND in Aug 05, and Salisbury, NC in Apr 10. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 28 Jun 00, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force, and was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman. On 3 May 05, the applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder. Psychological testing confirmed the presence of his anger problems, as well as a long term pattern of maladaptive behaviors, to include an indication that he is “impulsive, hostile towards others, agitated, and given to quick changes in mood.” On 7 Jun 05, the applicant was notified by his squadron commander that she was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for a condition that interfered with military service, specifically, a mental disorder. The reason for the proposed action was the applicant was diagnosed with a Personality Disorder that rendered him unfit for duty. It was determined his long-standing disorder of character, behavior, and adaptability was of such severity so as to preclude him from adequately performing in military service. On 8 Jun 05, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and after consulting with legal counsel, waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf. On 16 Jun 05, the base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support the basis for separation. The discharge authority approved the separation and directed an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 22 Jun 05, the applicant was honorably discharged, in the grade of senior airman, by reason of “Personality Disorder.” He served on active duty for a period of 4 years, 11 months, and 25 days. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of his request to change his narrative reason for separation and separation code. DPSOS states based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the narrative reason for separation and separation code was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. DPSOS further states the discharge package clearly indicates the applicant was counseled on numerous occasions regarding his conduct and was afforded an opportunity to meet Air Force standards prior to the initiation of his discharge. Although the applicant is apparently succeeding and coping well in his civilian capacity, it does not change the basis for which he was discharged. The military environment is unique and stressors encountered in such an environment may not appear or surface when removed from the military environment. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of his request to change his RE code. DPSOA states the applicant’s RE code (2C) is correct based on his involuntary discharge with an honorable character of service and is not affected by his medical diagnosis at the time of his separation. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends consideration for a change in the applicant’s narrative reason for separation and corresponding separation code, but no change in his assigned RE code. The BCMR Medical Consultant states it should be noted the probable explanation for the differences in the diagnostic conclusions reached by the military mental health provider on 3 May 05, as compared to the VA examiner on 30 Aug 05; the former basing the diagnostic conclusion upon objective testing and an unsolicited pattern of observed behavior during military service, as compared to that which was determined through an elective interview, without the benefit of access to the military evaluation documentation. The Medical Consultant opines that, if not due to a Personality Disorder, then the applicant’s recurring disrespect for authority figures, threatened physical altercation, self-reported unprofessional behavior without regard to the consequences, may have been more appropriately characterized as “Misconduct – Minor Disciplinary Infractions,” and resulting in a possible general (under honorable conditions) discharge. Notwithstanding the applicant’s post-service evaluations, one accomplished within two months of separation and the other in 2010, the Consultant finds this evidence insufficient to invalidate the findings of the military mental health provider and the subsequent actions taken by the discharge authority. The Medical Consultant opines that returning the applicant to military service, while satisfying his employment needs, would not be in the best interest of the Air Force. Even if not due to a personality disorder, there likely remains a predisposition for an unexpected, or even expected, recurrence or exacerbation of the applicant’s previously demonstrated maladaptive pattern of behavior or coping methodology under certain regimented military- unique environmental, occupational, and emotional stressors beyond his span of control; e.g., being assigned to a location that is not desirable to him. If the Board is convinced the applicant’s pattern of behavior during military service was improperly characterized or the military mental health provider committed an error in making the concluding diagnosis of Personality Disorder; or that the applicant’s pattern of behavior represented a learned “survival skill” or fits within the spectrum of normal behavior then an outright change of the narrative reason would be an appropriate remedy; along with a change in separation code and RE code to allow application for reentry to military service. The Medical Consultant is of the opinion the military provider’s assessment was not erroneous. However, at the risk of sounding ambivalent, considering the 2010 repeat mental health evaluation which also did not find evidence of a Personality Disorder, and the likelihood the applicant’s pattern of behavior simply represented misconduct, the Consultant opines that consideration of a change in narrative reason for discharge, e.g., “Secretarial Authority,” may be appropriate. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 4 Apr 11, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response has not been received (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 an error or injustice regarding the applicant’s request for a change in his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code. The RE code “2C” issued at the time of his separation accurately reflects the circumstances of his separation and should remain unchanged. Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence indicating the RE code is erroneous or unjust; we find no basis to recommend granting this portion of the applicant’s requests. 4. Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting a change in the narrative reason for the applicant’s separation. After reviewing the evidence of record, the applicant’s contentions, and the assessments provided by the Air Force offices of responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant, we believe the applicant’s narrative reason for separation and corresponding code should be changed to “Secretarial Authority” and “KFF” respectively. We find no error in the actions taken to effect his discharge, and note the narrative reason assigned at the time of his separation was appropriate. However, in considering the applicant’s 2010 repeat mental health evaluation which did not find evidence of a personality disorder and recognizing the adverse impact his narrative reason may have on future employment, we believe any doubt in this matter should be resolved in the applicant’s behalf. Therefore, in order to preclude a possible injustice to the applicant, we recommend his records be corrected to the extent indicated below. _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he was discharged on 22 June 2005, with a narrative reason for separation of “Secretarial Authority” rather than “Personality Disorder,” and a separation code of “KFF” rather than “JFX.” _______________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-01870 in Executive Session on 24 May 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 May 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 4 Nov 10. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 2 Dec 10. Exhibit E. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 15 Mar 11. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Apr 11. Panel Chair