RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04578 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation of “Unsuitable – Personality Disorder – Evaluation Officer” be expunged from his record. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was not provided legal or medical counseling at the very beginning of his discharge processing. He was not aware of the process ramifications or why he was being evaluated. He believes his discharge was unjust because he received a narrative reason of “personality disorder”. Expunging his narrative reason from his record does not give him any benefit except for clearing his name before he loses his fight with Stage 3 Cancer. While attending Basic Military Training (BMT) he had conversations about washing out due to problems at home that were severely affecting his ability to serve. However, his leaders encouraged him to stick it out because they felt he was thriving. His parents were divorcing and he was concerned with his little sister’s situation. Later, he was referred to the wing commander for what he thought was counseling, but instead he was being evaluated and information was being gathered on his situation. Nevertheless, he never received counseling. He does not use drugs and has no criminal record (before or after serving in the military). He insists he has never had any incidents that even remotely suggest a finding of him having a “personality disorder” either in his past or in present. In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted into the Regular Air Force on 8 Oct 80. The applicant’s commander notified him on 21 Apr 81, he was recommending hi discharge under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Chapter 2, paragraph 2-4b. Specifically, he had an immature personality, chronic, moderate disorder, (DSM III 301.89); diagnosed by the Mental Health Clinic, (SGHMM) as indicated by the letter dated 31 Mar 81. An evaluation officer was appointed to interview and counsel the applicant on his right to submit a rebuttal and make statements in his own behalf. The evaluation officer offered to assist him in the preparation of any written statements or rebuttals. The applicant accepted the right to submit statements in his own behalf and to call witnesses or to present other evidence. The applicant submitted a Letter of Retraction. The evaluation officer reviewed the letter from the applicant, altering his recommendation regarding the applicant’s discharge to recommending a general rather than an honorable based on a combination of two factors, neither of which was serious enough alone to warrant a general discharge. Those factors were 1) personality disorder and 2) his short term of service. After a legal review, the staff judge advocate found it legally sufficient. He received an honorable discharge on 6 May 81 after serving 6 months and 29 days on active duty. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of his discharge. The applicant has not provided any facts warranting a change to his narrative reason for separation. Therefore, based on the documentation in his master personnel records, DPSOS notes the applicant’s narrative reason for separation was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirement of the governing instructions and was within the discharge authority’s discretion. The DPSOS complete 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 20 May 11 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response. _________________________________________________________________ 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 took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of 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-2010-04578 in Executive Session on 7 Jul 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 28 Mar 11. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 May 11.