RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02955 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation be changed from personality disorder to medical discharge. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. She was discharged for a diagnosed personality disorder however, at the time of the diagnosis she was receiving medical treatment from Mental Health and was prescribed prescriptions. 2. During the year 2010, she was seeing multiple mental health doctors and was diagnosed with depression which contributed to her personality disorder. She was also diagnosed with cluster B personality disorder. She was prescribed Citaiopram, Sertraline, Topiramate, Bupropion, and Celexa for her personality disorder. Her reason for separation should be “Medical.” In support of her request, the applicant submits a copy of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, medical records and Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) disability compensation approval letter with attachments. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 28 July 2009 and was progressively promoted to the rank of Airman First Class (A1C), E-3 with an effective date of rank of 25 September 2009. On 5 January 2011 the applicant was notified by her commander that he was recommending her for discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 Military Retirements and Separations and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, Chapter 5, Section 5B, Involuntary Convenience of the Government, paragraph 5.11, Conditions that Interfere with Military Service, paragraph 5.11.9.1, under Mental Disorders. The specific reason for this action was on 18 November 2010; the applicant was given a psychological evaluation by a licensed psychologist and was diagnosed as having a personality disorder. The psychologist determined that although some members can serve in the military with a personality disorder, the applicant’s disorder was of a severity that success was not deemed likely and her deployability was questionable. The psychologist stated that the diagnosis of a personality disorder of this severity is incompatible with military service. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and was advised of her right to consult counsel and submit a statement to the commander for consideration. She opted to consult counsel and submit a statement on her behalf. Subsequent to the file being found legally sufficient the discharge authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be separated with an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation. The applicant was discharged on 26 January 2011, with a narrative reason for separation of “Personality Disorder” and a separation code of “JFX.” She was credited with 1 year, 5 months and 29 days of active duty service. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states; although they are pleased the applicant is apparently succeeding and coping well in her civilian capacity, it does not change the basis for which she was discharged from the Air Force. The military environment is unique and stressors encountered in such an environment may not appear or surface when removed from the military environment. The administrative discharge package clearly indicated the applicant was counseled on numerous occasions regarding her conduct and was afforded an opportunity to meet Air Force standards prior to the initiation of her discharge. Based on the documentation on file in the master military 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. They found no evidence of an error or injustice in the processing of the applicant’s case. The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical Consultant states an individual may concurrently carry more than one mental diagnosis at a given time; referred to as co-morbid diagnoses (pl). Secondly, many mental disorders share or overlap in symptomatology, e.g., Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood, Bipolar Disorder (hypo manic phase), Alcohol Abuse, with associated Depressed Mood. There has been some observed variability of the nomenclature assigned to the applicant’s symptoms at a given time, but after a greater period of observation, care, and analysis, her primary diagnosis (the predominant one believed to interfere with the applicant’s service) was one which qualified her for the involuntary administrative discharge she received. Although the applicant’s record contains evidence she carried the diagnosis of Depression at one or more episodes of care, military medical officials determined that it was the applicant’s Personality Disorder, and not her co-morbid history of Depression that significantly interfered with her retainability or suitability for continued service. Consequently, she did not qualify for processing of her separation through disability channels under provisions of AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention and Retirement. Instead, she was processed under provisions of AFI 36-3208 for a mental condition NOT considered a disability. An extract from Department of Defense Instruction 1332.38, Physical Disability Evaluation, in effect at the time of the applicant’s release from service, lists Adjustment Disorder and Personality Disorder among conditions of a developmental nature and which are not considered a disability. On the other hand, operating under a different set of laws, Title 38 United States Code (U.S.C.), the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition determined service incurred, without regard to and independent of its individual proven impact upon a service member’s retainability, fitness to serve, or the narrative reason for release from military service. This is the reason why an individual may be released from military service for one reason, and sometime after release from service, receive a compensation rating for a condition that was found service connected, but was not individually unfitting for military service. Thus, the fact that the DVA awarded the applicant compensation for the diagnosis of Depressive Disorder is not a justification for a retroactive unfit finding and the award of a disability rating for the same; as it does not invalidate the preponderance of clinical evidence that it was the applicant’s non-compensable and non-ratable Personality Disorder that significantly interfered with her retainability and which rendered her unsuitable for military service. The BCMR Medical Consultant opines the applicant has not met the burden of proof of error or injustice that warrants the desired change of record and recommends denial of the applicant’s petition for a change in the narrative reason for discharge from a Personality Disorder to a Medical Discharge. The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 November 2011 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. A copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 26 March 2012, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. ________________________________________________________________ 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 opinions and recommendations of AFPC/DPSOS and the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their 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 this application BC-2011-02955 in Executive Session on 8 May 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 July 2011, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 13 October 2011. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 November 2011. Exhibit E. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 26 March 2012. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 26 March 2012.