RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00084 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation (Unsuitability – Character and Behavior Disorders) be changed to a disability separation or permanent disability retirement. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He did not receive a mental health evaluation or mental health treatment prior to his discharge. While in the service he was diagnosed by competent medical authority as having a passive- aggressive personality - the same condition he is being treated for now as well as being hospitalized in a psychiatric inpatient unit. In support of the applicant’s appeal, he provides Congressional documentation, medical documentation, and documents extracted from his military personnel records. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 30 November 1972. The applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend his discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of AFM 39-12. The specific reason is the applicant had been diagnosed by competent medical authority as having a character and behavior disorder best classified as passive aggressive personality. This disorder had manifested itself in the applicant being absent without leave (AWOL) from 6 May 1973 through 29 May 1973 and constant complaints of being ill when in fact no ailment could be found. He was advised of his rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of the notification. His case was heard by an evaluation officer who indicated the applicant was unsuited for further military service for the following reasons: 1) The applicant’s inability to adjust and conform to military standards; 2) his willingness to be AWOL and neglect his assigned duties; 3) his failure to obey lawful orders from superiors; 4) his lack of interest to participate and progress in the upgrade and OJT programs; 5) the applicant’s desire to not remain in the Air Force nor did he apply himself for advancement under any career field; and 6) his passive aggressive personality as determined by the medical profession which makes his behavior unreliable and possibly dangerous. The evaluation officer recommended the applicant be separated for character behavior disorder best classified as passive aggressive personality. In a legal review of the case file, the staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended discharge. The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The applicant was discharged on 15 October 1973. He served 10 months and 16 days on active duty On 11 June 1985, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable and his narrative reason for discharge (Unsuitability – Character and Behavior Disorders) be changed. The board concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process (Exhibit B). ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. DPSOR 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 reason and authority. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records the discharge to include the applicant’s reason and authority was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge Manuel and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The DPSOR complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states he believes the office of primary responsibility has not been briefed on personality disorders. He provides information on personality disorders for the Board’s review. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ _ 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. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred during the discharge process. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority. The applicant has provided no evidence, which would lead us to believe that his narrative reason for separation was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation. Therefore, 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. ________________________________________________________________ _ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2013-00084 in Executive Session on 12 September 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 November 2012, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Available Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 26 March 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 April 2013. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 5 September 2013, w/atchs. 3 4