RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04547 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation of “Personality Disorder” and corresponding separation code “JFX” be changed. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was never given an official diagnosis of personality disorder. He has gone through two divorces and spent nearly $100,000 in legal fees and is currently unable to see his children due to his ex-wives false beliefs regarding the reason for his separation. He did not know it was possible to have his discharge reviewed until recently. The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) agreed he was not diagnosed but still refused to change the reason for separation. In support of his request, he provides copies of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) statement of the case, SAF/MRBR letter and a letter of support. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 30 Dec 96, the applicant entered active duty. According to his DD Form 214, he was honorably discharged on 25 Jan 99 with a narrative reason for separation of “Personality Disorder” and a corresponding separation code of “JFX.” He served two years, one month and four days on active duty. On 24 Feb 12, the AFDRB denied the applicant’s request for a change of his discharge reason. The AFDRB was unable to find any documentation regarding the discharge. Due to a lack of evidence and supporting documentation to explain the discharge, the AFDRB relied on the presumption of regularity and found the narrative reason for discharge appropriate. The AFDRB stated that if the applicant provided additional documentation to substantiate his issue, he should consider exercising his right to make a personal appearance. The AFDRB concluded the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. The applicant failed to submit any evidence that an error or injustice occurred in the processing of the discharge action. The discharge to include the characterization of service, Separation Program Designator (SPD) code and narrative reason for separation are consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. There is insufficient evidence contained within the applicant’s military records to confirm the circumstances and facts surrounding his discharge. Absent the documentation, there is a presumption of regularity in which the applicant was afforded due process. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. In Accordance With (IAW) AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, para 5.11.9, a recommendation for discharge under this provision must be supported by a report of evaluation by a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist that confirms the diagnosis of a disorder as contained in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Medical Disorders. Therefore, it is DPSOR’s opinion that the applicant’s commander would have received such a diagnosis in order to begin discharge proceedings and provided this information to the discharge authority for final decision. Furthermore, in keeping with the mandatory discharge processing procedures, the base legal office reviewed the discharge and found it legally sufficient. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _____________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He is currently being seen by yet another psychologist whose opinion is that he was never diagnosed with a personality disorder. He was never given any tests for a personality disorder while in the military nor was he given an opportunity to offer any statement and/or defense before being discharged. Like tens of thousands of other service members, his discharge was done improperly and due to this false discharge, he is now divorced and over $100,000 in debt and is not able to see his children on a regular basis. A psychologist cannot just recommend a discharge due to a “feeling” it must be done with actual testing which was never done. In further support of his request, he provides a mental health evaluation report, a medical progress report and statement of the case from the DVA. The applicant’s complete submission, 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 error or injustice. While the applicant argues that his discharge was improper, he has not provided sufficient evidence that the actions taken to affect his discharge and narrative reason for separation were improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the time. 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. 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 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- 2013-04547 in Executive Session on 8 Jul 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence in Docket Number BC-2013- 04547 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Sep 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 31 Dec 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 24 Jan 14. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Feb 14, w/atchs.