RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02564 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general discharge be upgraded to honorable or to a medical honorable discharge. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should have received an honorable discharge or a medical honorable discharge. He was misdiagnosed with a personality and behavior disorder and has felt the stigma of a less than honorable discharge since leaving the military. Even though he was gainfully employed with the local Fire Department and retired after over 28 years of good service, he did not feel comfortable using his status as a veteran to further his civilian career with the department. In support of his request, the applicant provides a written statement, copy of his DD Form 214 Report of Separation from Active Duty, and an undated counseling evaluation letter from an Air Force Chaplain given at the time of his enlistment. His complete submission is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 20 August 1971. On 31 October 1973, the commander notified the applicant of his intent to discharge him for unsuitability for military service. Specifically, the applicant was diagnosed by a competent medical authority as having a character and behavior disorder best classified as hysterical personality. This condition was stated as being basically untreatable in an Air Force setting. On 31 October 1973, the applicant acknowledged receipt of his commander’s intent to discharge him and his right to consult counsel and submit a statement(s) on his behalf. He accepted a consultation with the appointed evaluation officer. On 7 November 1973 the evaluating officer counseled the applicant of the commander’s recommended action and advised him of his right to submit a statement or a rebuttal on his behalf. The applicant acknowledged the counseling and waived his right to make a statement or submit a rebuttal to the proposed action. Subsequent to the file being found legally sufficient the discharge authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be discharged. The applicant was discharged effective 16 November 1973 and was credited with 2 years, 2 months and 27 days of active duty service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application extracted from the applicant’s military personnel records are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force (Exhibits C and D). Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings. ______________________________________________________________ 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 discharge processing. He provided no facts warranting a change to his character of service. Based on the documentation on file in the master military personnel records, the discharge, to include the applicant’s character of service is correct and was established in accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge manual. The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant opines the fact that the applicant has since been diagnosed with an Anxiety Disorder does not invalidate the characterization of his maladaptive pattern of behavior demonstrated decades earlier; at which time competent medical authority found no evidence of a mental disorder that would qualify for processing as a disability under AFM 35-4 Physical Evaluation for retention, Retirement, and Separation. Instead it was determined that the applicant’s personality rendered him unsuitable for military service under Air Force policies (AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program), as would also be the case under current Department of Defense (DoD) policies (DoD Instruction 1332.38, Physical Disability Evaluation), classifying the applicant’s Hysterical Personality under conditions not considered a physical disability. Although separations due to a Personality Disorder are usually characterized as Honorable, the Consultant opines it is likely that the discharge authority took into account the applicant’s associated minor disciplinary infractions in characterizing his service as General, under Honorable conditions. Since it is also plausible that the applicant’s manifest disregard for his personal appearance and repeated untimely reporting for duty were related to his underlying personality and level of maturity. The Medical Consultant finds it reasonable to take these into consideration as matters in extenuation and mitigation; although it does not excuse his behavior. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends granting partial relief by consideration of an upgrade of service characterization to honorable due to the possible causal and mitigating relationship between some of his disciplinary infractions and his underlying personality structure. The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 15 December 2011 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has not received a response. ________________________________________________________________ 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. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and noted the BCMR Medical Consultant’s recommendation. However, other than the applicant’s own assertions, he has provided no evidence that would lead us to believe the characterization of his discharge is in error and not in accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge manual. Therefore we agree with the recommendation of AFPC/DPSOS and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ________________________________________________________________ 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 this application BC-2011-02564 in Executive Session on 23 February 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149 dated 27 Jul 2011. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 3 Nov 2011. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR Med Consultant, dated 13 Dec 2011. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Dec 2011. Panel Chair