RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00184 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Her type of separation be changed from “Discharged” to “Released from Active Duty.” 2. Her narrative reason for separation of “Personality Disorder,” and separation code of “JFX,” be changed to “Early Release to Attend School, and “KCE.” 3. Her Reentry (RE) code of 2C which denotes “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” be changed to 1J which denotes “Eligible to reenlist, but elects separation.” 4. Her AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) (AB thru TSgt), rendered for the period 13 Aug 95 through 31 Jul 96, be declared void and removed from her records or in the alternative be upgraded to an overall “4” rating. 5. All references to her thoughts of suicide ideations be removed from her personnel military and medical records. 6. Her involuntary discharge documents be removed from her personnel file. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In a 25-page letter, the applicant summarizes her military career and references many instances of improprieties and harassment against women in the military. She states that she was psychologically abused and harassed by her first sergeant and betrayed by her superiors. She resented the unfair treatment and exposure to violent men and requested an early separation, but her request was denied. Her chain of command used the mental health clinic as a tool of persecution. She was inaccurately diagnosed with paranoia because she became distrustful of people. Having “Personality Disorder” on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, for the past 16 years is unjust and labels her for life as potential employers will question her military service. According to AFI 44-109, Mental Health, Confidentiality, and Military Law, references to a member’s mental health should not be contained in their military record rather they should be kept separately at the mental health clinic. She has been discriminated against by the US Postal Service because of what was on her DD Form 214. In support of her request, the applicant provides a personal statement, a statement from her husband, copies of her DD Form 214, college transcripts, military personnel/medical records, and various other documents associated with her request. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 13 May 91, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of six years. On 7 Aug 96, the applicant was notified by her squadron commander that he was recommending her discharge from the Air Force for a mental disorder. The reason for the proposed action was the applicant was diagnosed with a Personality Disorder that rendered her unfit for duty. Specifically, on or about 16 Jul 96, the applicant was evaluated by a Staff Clinical Psychologist, and was diagnosed as having an Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood and a Personality Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified (NOS) (Avoidant & Paranoid). It was determined that the condition was of such severity that her ability to function effectively in the military environment was significantly impaired. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and, after consulting with legal counsel, waived her rights to submit statements in her own behalf. The base legal office found the case legally sufficient to support the separation, and the discharge authority directed an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 16 Aug 96, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for (Personality Disorder) with service characterized as honorable. She served five years, three months, and three days of active duty. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change her type of separation, narrative reason for separation and separation code. DPSOR states that on or about 16 Jul 96, the applicant talked of killing herself rather than living in a dorm, and agreed to the suggestion that she see a mental health provider. She was evaluated and diagnosed by a clinical psychologist with an Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood and Personality Disorder NOS (Avoidant & Paranoid). The applicant’s disorders were determined to be severe enough to impair her ability to function effectively in a military environment. In accordance with AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.11.1, a recommendation for discharge must be supported by a report of evaluation by a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist that confirms the diagnosis of a mental disorder. Although 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. DPSOR states that based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include her narrative reason for separation, type of discharge, and separation code was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change her RE code to 1J. DPSOA states the applicant’s RE code “2C” is correct based on her involuntary separation with an honorable characterization of service. The applicant is requesting a “1J” RE code; however, the applicant cannot be awarded a 1J RE code as she was not selected for reenlistment by her commander, since it was her commander who initiated her involuntary discharge. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFMOA/SGHW recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove the mental health note and medical note regarding her thoughts of suicide ideations from her military medical records. SGHW states that the available medical documents reflect information that she was seen by mental health providers at different times during her career. Based on the documentation provided, a mental health provider believed that she had a personality disorder. The discharge board convened and agreed to the administrative separation. There is no supportive documentation to overturn the diagnosis in question from the applicant’s medical record; therefore, it should not be removed from her record. The complete SGHW evaluation is at Exhibit E. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void her 31 Jul 96 referral EPR or change the final rating to a “4.” The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports due to her separation status from active duty. DPSID states that the contented EPR has been a matter of record for 17 years. Based on the extensive delay in filing this claim, the Air Force no longer has documents on file (i.e. Base Personnel Information File, Unfavorable Information File, Control Roster, Letter of Reprimand, etc.) which complicates any ability to determine the merits of the applicant’s request. Therefore, they see no valid reason to remove or modify the contested report, and consider the applicant’s request without merit. The applicant received a referral EPR rendered for the period 13 Aug 95 through 31 Jul 96 after failing to attend Airmen Leadership School (ALS). The applicant has not provided any substantial evidence which indicates the evaluators of the contested report wrote an unfair or impartial EPR and only presented her view of events and of others outside the rating chain. The applicant’s commander informed her to attend ALS, and she stated that she would rather kill herself then attend and have to relocate back to the dormitories. DPSID points out the EPR in question makes no mention of the pending administrative discharge but rather the offense of not meeting her training requirements by refusing to attend ALS and accepting higher responsibilities. DPSID states that the inclusion of the referral comment on the EPR was appropriate and within the evaluator’s authority to document. Based on the evidence provided, or lack thereof, DPSID concludes that the mention of failing to meet training requirements on the contested EPR was proper and in accordance with Air Force policies and procedures. Regarding the applicant’s request to have the contested report modified or changed, the applicant has failed to provide a reaccomplished EPR, along with signed memorandums of support/justification from her original evaluators at the time. AFI 36-2401 states that “If you are requesting a report be reaccomplished, you must furnish a substitute report and the report must be signed by the original evaluators.” It also states that the ERAB will not consider nor approve requests to reaccomplish a report without the applicant furnishing the new report. For this reason alone, the applicant’s request to change or modify the contested report should be rejected and the EPR remain in her permanent record. To successfully challenge the validity of an evaluation report, it is important to hear from the evaluators—not necessarily for support, but at least for clarification/explanation. An evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. Once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record. The applicant has not substantiated that the contested report is unjust or inaccurate as written. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit F. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change her narrative reason for separation to “Early Release to Attend School.” DPSOR states that the narrative reason “Personality Disorder” is correct. The applicant did not submit any evidence to support her claim, nor has she provided evidence of being discriminated against by the US Postal Service. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit G. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 19 Sep 13, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit H). 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 offices of primary responsibility 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 Docket Number BC-2013-00184 in Executive Session on 7 Nov 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member Due to the unavailability of XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXX will sign as Acting Panel Chair. The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2013-00184 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Jan 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 11 Mar 13. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 17 Apr 13. Exhibit E. Letter, AFMOA/SGHW, dated 10 May 13. Exhibit F. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 21 Jun 13. Exhibit G. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 6 Aug 13. Exhibit H. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Sep 13. 1 2