ADDENDUM TO 
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01264

   	COUNSEL: 
	 
 	HEARING: YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS:

Through counsel, her records be corrected to: 

(1) Void her DD Form 214, dated 7 Mar 12. 
(2) Void her 14 Mar 11 involuntary separation, and remove all related separation documents. 
(3) Administratively reinstate her to active duty in the grade of E-4 with back pay and allowances. (4) Refer her for evaluation by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).  

In the alternative, correct the narrative reason for separation on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, from “Personality Disorder,” to “Secretarial Authority” with a corresponding Separation Program Designator (SPD) code. 

RESUME OF THE CASE: 

On 10 Jan 13, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s request to change her narrative reason for separation on her DD Form 214 from “Personality Disorder,” to reflect a separation for medical disability due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), bi-polar disorder, and anxiety.  The applicant contended she was never diagnosed with personality disorder while in the Air Force.  She believed unresolved issues with her husband had a significant impact on her mental status because she was not receiving treatment for her illnesses.  The Board determined the applicant’s discharge was consistent with the requirements of the discharge regulation, and the applicant did not provide sufficient information to establish her narrative reason for separation was incorrect, or that PTSD, bipolar disorder, or anxiety were the reasons for her discharge.  For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s original request and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit C.

On 13 May 14, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration of her original case, now requesting the additional relief listed under “Applicant’s Request” above.  The applicant contends the Air Force misdiagnosed her illnesses, and improperly discharged her for a mental health condition she did not have.  Thus, her discharge was unlawful.  Had the Air Force properly diagnosed her with bipolar disorder it would be precluded by law from involuntarily discharging her.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant recommends denial of the application.  The applicant entered a period of active service on 15 Jan 08 and was discharged 14 Mar 11 with a narrative reason of “Personality Disorder” and separation code of JFX.  Generally, a personality disorder involves “An enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture.”  This pattern is observed in the way an individual perceives and interprets self, others and the world.  This Psychology Consultant noted the consistency with which the applicant reported her symptoms to be present since adolescence and tied to environmental cues and stressors.  The applicant’s instant and intense efforts at self-preservation in moments of attack, real and perceived, was likely adaptive during her adolescent years when she allegedly suffered multiple assaults.  The entirety of the record shows a stable pattern of emotional reactivity and interpersonal conflict befitting the personality disorder diagnosis she received.  On the other hand, this Consultant did not find descriptions of bipolar I disorder compelling.

The applicant has also been diagnosed with PTSD, existing prior to service, with an alleged onset stemming from several sexual assaults prior to military service and aggravation from domestic violence in service.  Yet, the applicant denied mental health symptoms when she sought enlistment and did not report symptoms meeting criteria for PTSD until after discharge.  In addition, symptoms causing disruption within her interpersonal relationships are not specific to PTSD.  Thus, the argument that PTSD symptoms disqualified the applicant from military service is weakened by a lack of in-service evidence and relies on post-hoc speculation.  The applicant’s self-report, psychological evaluations, and information from collateral interviews most strongly support a stable, characterologic manner of dealing with problems that began early in her youth and became maladaptive upon entry into adult roles.  This is consistent with the personality disorder diagnosis resulting in her discharge and is not a condition warranting DES processing.  The Clinical Psychology Consultant opines the applicant has not met the burden of proof for an error or injustice in this case. Regrettably, The Clinical Psychology Consultant opines the applicant has not met the burden of proof for an error or injustice in this case. Recommendation is to deny the requested relief. 

Alternatively, the Board could choose to grant the applicant’s request for a change in narrative reason for discharge due to potential concerns associated with “personality disorder” as a potentially stigmatizing label, even though the narrative reason is an accurate reflection of why she was administratively separated from military service. The complete advisory is at Exhibit F.

THE APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 7 Jul 15 for comment (Exhibit G), and the applicant replied on three occasions between 18 Mar 16 and 2 Nov 17.  Counsel contends the AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant omitted noteworthy information.  First, even if the applicant did suffer from Personality Disorder, she also suffered from Bipolar Disorder which the Air Force failed to diagnose.  This warrant returning her to active duty to refer her to an MEB.  

AFI 36-3208 requires pre-separation rehabilitation, however, there is no evidence the applicant’s commander made any attempt to rehabilitate her.  Had the Air Force not rushed to discharge her, it undoubtedly would have diagnosed her with Bipolar Disorder.  

Counsel takes exception to the qualifications and experience level of the author of the AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant’s advisory, and accuses him of “cherry picking” evidence from the applicant’s record which supports his position.  Counsel summarizes the advisory as “a transparent and understandable attempt to justify the erroneous diagnosis of Personality Disorder made by his employer, the USAF.”  

Counsel also submitted a letter from a Department of Veteran’s Affairs (DVA) psychiatrist and a letter from the Social Security Administration, both attesting to her current health status, notification the applicant had been hospitalized in California due to psychotic behavior, and additional DVA documents summarizing her history of Bipolar Disorder.  

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit H.

THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor recommends denial of the application.  An extensive review of the applicant’s case file was summarized by the AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant, and will not be reiterated here.  This applicant’s new evidence qualifying her for reconsideration are hospitalization records dated 20 May 17, in which she was admitted for inpatient stabilization for acute psychosis.  She was given diagnoses of acute psychosis and bipolar disorder by history.  Her legal counsel contends individuals with bipolar disorder may exhibit symptoms of psychosis and thus, provides additional support to the affirmation of her mood disorder diagnosis.  This assertion is correct and symptoms of psychosis could be an induction of mere exacerbation of mood severity.  However, this advisor reminds the Board the evidence needs to support the applicant’s mental health condition at the "snap shot" in time, in reference to applicant's time in service.  There is no evidence to suggest her psychotic symptoms began or were aggravated by service.  She was discharged in 2011 and her first documented psychotic symptoms reported in 2017, approximately six years post-service.  The psychotic symptoms on its own are not diagnostic of any specific psychiatric illness and can represent manifestation of various conditions such as schizophrenia, mood disorder, substance intoxication, medical illness, etc.  Therefore, the evidence presented is not sufficient to establish the applicant suffered from bipolar disorder in 2011.  Hence, after review of the case file, this psychological advisor fully concurs with the opinions rendered by clinical psychology advisor who stated the applicant's personality disorder, and not bipolar disorder, was present and an “unsuiting” condition that resulted to her administrative separation from the Air Force.

This psychological advisor regrettably recommends denial of applicant’s request.  However, due to a “Personality Disorder” being a potentially stigmatizing label, recommend the Board reconsider the recommendation to change her narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority.”  The complete advisory is at Exhibit I.

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denial of the application.  The applicant was diagnosed by mental health professionals after being seen for psychological testing and clinical interviews.  It was recommended the applicant be separated based on the applicant’s condition that was an impairment to continued military service.  The discharge authority approved the recommendation.  Based on review of the applicant’s request and of the master personnel record, there is no error or injustice with the discharge processing.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit J.

THE APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The Board sent a copy of the additional Air Force evaluations to the applicant on 13 Jul 18 for comment (Exhibit N), but has not received a reply. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES:

1.  The application was timely filed.
 
2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of the AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant, Psychiatric Advisor and AFPC/DP2STM finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The Board notes the AFBCMR’s Clinical Psychology Consultant and Psychiatric Advisor comments regarding changing the applicant’s narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority;” however, the Board does not find that her DD Form 214 is in error.  Therefore, the Board recommends against granting any of the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS:

The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2012-01264 in Executive Session on 22 Aug 18:

Chair
Member
Member

All members voted to not correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit C:	 Original Record of Proceedings, dated 7 Feb 13.  
Exhibit D:	 Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 13 May 15.
Exhibit E:	 Military Human Resources Records (Excerpt) 
Exhibit F:	 Advisory opinion, AFBCMR Psychology Consultant, dated 30 Jun 15.
Exhibit G:	 Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 7 Jul 15.
Exhibit H:  Applicant’s Rebuttals, dated 18 Mar 16, 6 Sep 17, and 2 Nov 17.
Exhibit I:   Advisory Opinion, AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor, dated 6 Jun 18. 
Exhibit J:   Advisory Opinion, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 27 Jun 18.  
Exhibit K:  Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 13 Jul 18.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9 for Docket Number BC-2012-01264.