RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00185 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be reinstated into the Air Force, or as an alternative, she be reinstated into the Air Force Reserve or the Air National Guard. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was separated from the Air Force after 15 years of service for adjustment disorder. She asks the Board to consider reinstating her into the Air Force. She was told adjustment disorder only lasts three to five months and since the disorder is only temporary, she feels she was erroneously separated. She deployed while stationed at Charleston Air Force Base, South Carolina and had orders to FE Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming upon her return. Because her family was already at FE Warren, a deal was made that she would take her post-deployment reintegration time there. She had not seen her family in nine months and was elated about the agreement to spend her reintegration time there. When she arrived at FE Warren, she was sent to the missile field rather than the 90th Force Support Squadron as stated on her orders. Life on the missile field was lonely as it required that she worked three to five days at a time. This meant she could only see her family a couple times a week. Prior to her diagnosis of adjustment disorder, she tried to explain to her leadership what she was feeling and going through. She saw people around her receiving help for various things; however, she did not feel that same support. No one had time to help her. Her family life is now stable and other adjustments have been made. She wants to be like the rest of her family and retire with dignity. The military is in her blood and she does not want to disappoint her family. She just wants to defend her country once again. In support of this appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement, documentation from her master personnel records and e-mail correspondence. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 3 September 1997. On 22 June 2012, she was notified of her commander’s intent to discharge her from the Air Force for Conditions that Interfere with Military Service: Mental Disorder – Personality Disorder and Adjustment Disorder. Specifically, she was diagnosed with Paranoid Personality Disorder and an Adjustment Disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct, recurrent. It was concluded that the personality disorder and adjustment disorder were of such a severity that it impaired her ability to function effectively in a military environment. The applicant acknowledged her right to present her case to an administrative discharge board, to be represented by military counsel and to submit matters on her behalf to be considered by the discharge board. She did not waive her right to a board hearing and or counsel. She also submitted matters on her behalf. On 7 August 2012, the discharge board found the applicant did have an adjustment disorder; however, they found that she did not have a paranoid personality disorder. The Board also found the disorder was so severe that her ability to function effectively in a military environment was significantly impaired. They recommended that she be discharged with an honorable service characterization. She was not offered probation and rehabilitation. On 22 October 2012, the commander approved the discharge and directed she be separated with an honorable discharge. Her narrative reason for separation is listed as Adjustment Disorder. Upon review of her records, AFPC/DPSID confirmed the applicant’s record should reflect she was awarded the Air Force Good Conduct Medal with three Bronze Oak Leaf Clusters. Her records will be updated accordingly. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of reinstatement into the Air Force. The applicant’s commander initiated a command directed evaluation of her following a suicide attempt on 12 January 2012. She was diagnosed with Axis II (Paranoid Personality Disorder) of such a severity that her ability to function effectively in a military environment was significantly impaired. She was deemed to be at a significant increased lifetime risk for impulsive suicide attempt and completion. She was evaluated for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD); however, her diagnosis did not meet the criteria for PTSD or any other unfitting condition that would necessitate a Medical Evaluation Board. The applicant’s discharge board was held on 7 August 2012. Her commander reviewed the record of Board Proceeding and approved the Board’s findings. The administrative discharge package clearly indicates the applicant was counseled on numerous occasions regarding her conduct and afforded the opportunity to meet Air Force standards prior to the initiation of her discharge. The applicant is apparently succeeding and coping well in her civilian capacity; however, that does not change the basis for which she was separated. The documentation in her master personnel file, 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. There is no evidence of an error or injustice in the processing of the discharge. AFPC/DPSOR does concur with the applicant being reinstated if cleared medically and recommended for reinstatement. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends the applicant’s records be administratively corrected to reflect she was awarded the Air Force Good Conduct Medal with three Bronze Oak Leaf Clusters. The applicant had been receiving the Air Force Good Conduct Medal every three years until it was denied on 4 September 2012. Due to this denial, it appears that all other previously awarded Air Force Good Conduct Medals were deleted from her records. The applicant’s records will be administratively corrected. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/JA recommends denial of the applicant’s request for reinstatement. The applicant alleges she was improperly separated for having an adjustment disorder when her primary care manager testified at her administrative discharge board hearing that she no longer had the disorder. On 15 February 2012, she was diagnosed with having a paranoid personality disorder and adjustment disorder. Her military medical provider testified that she had an adjustment disorder. The applicant sought a second opinion from a civilian provider who confirmed she had an adjustment disorder. AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.11 states Airmen may be discharged based upon conditions listed in DoDI 1332.38 that interfere with duty performance and are not within the purview of the disability evaluation system. Airmen are eligible for referral into the disability evaluation system when they have a medical condition set forth in DoDI 1332.38. At the time of her diagnosis, this instruction provided that persons with adjustment disorders were not considered to have a physical disability, and thus not entitled to process through the disability evaluation system. Likewise, personality disorder was not considered a physical disability warranting processing through the disability evaluation system. Due to the applicant’s deployments, additional processing requirements were applicable to address PTSD by a Ph.D.-level clinical psychologist. Based on the endorsement from the Air Force Surgeon General, all of these processing requirements appear to have been met. When a commander recommends a member for discharge based on mental disorder, the recommendation must be supported by documents confirming the existence of the condition or disorder. There should also be documentation that details the effects of the disorder on the member’s performance, conduct, inability to adapt to military environment, or other reasons that would limit the member’s potential for completing their enlistment. The record reflects evidence confirming the existence of adjustment disorder which was diagnosed by a clinical psychologist and validated by the clinic’s Ph.D. psychologist. The same diagnosis was made independently by a civilian psychologist. Additionally, the commander relied on the diagnosis of the paranoid personality disorder and adjustment disorder when assessing whether her condition affected her ability to adapt in a military environment. The applicant’s suicide attempt and her unprofessional display of anger and emotions in one instance, as well has her inability to perform duties commensurate with her Air Force specialty code and grade was used as evidence to show the applicant did not adjust well to her assignment. The evidence in this case was sufficient to establish that the requirements of the discharge regulation were met. The boards findings and recommendation and the separation authority’s decision were supported by the evidence and were a proper exercise of the discretion afforded to them. The applicant did not establish an error warranting corrective action. She also has not established an injustice as the actions in her case were permissible actions taken at the discretion of her commander. The complete JA evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 10 July 2013 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). 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 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; however, we are not persuaded by the evidence submitted in this appeal that the applicant should be reinstated in the Air Force. Therefore, 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 relief beyond that already administratively granted is not warranted. 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-00185 in Executive Session on 24 October 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Jan 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 1 Mar 13. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 13 May 13. Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 19 Jun 13. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jul 13. 1 2