RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03812 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation “Unsuitability - Personality Disorder” be removed from her record. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was unfairly discharged after being a victim of military sexual trauma. She was awarded a 100 percent disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) 32 years after the sexual trauma. She never had a personality disorder. In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and DVA memoranda. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 5 October 1981, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. In a letter dated 12 May 1982, a mental health evaluation found the applicant had a mixed personality disorder, with borderline and antisocial features as described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, third edition (DSM III), which interfered with her ability to adequately perform her military duties. In a letter dated 9 July 1982, an evaluation officer recommended the discharge authority not consider the applicant for rehabilitation, but that she should be honorably discharged from the Air Force. In an undated letter, the applicant’s commander notified her that he was recommending she be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Unfitness, Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program, due to her personality disorder. On 15 July 1982, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification. On 20 July 1982, the Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge legally sufficient. On 21 July 1982, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge. Probation and rehabilitation was not recommended. On 23 July 1982, she was honorably discharged from the Air Force after serving 9 months, and 19 days of total active service. Her narrative reason for discharge is “Unsuitability - Personality Disorder.” AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. The applicant has not submitted her application in a timely manner as it has been approximately 32 years since her discharge. In accordance with the regulation at the time, an evaluation officer was appointed to review the case and submit a recommendation to the discharge authority. The evaluation officer reviewed the case and conducted an interview with the applicant. The evaluation officer recommended she be discharged from Air Force with an honorable discharge based on the diagnosed personality disorder which was incompatible with further military service. As a result, discharge action was initiated. Therefore, the separation code, narrative reason for separation and character of service are correct as indicated on the applicant's DD Form 214. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 3 February 2015, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response Exhibit D). ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Clinical Mental Health Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The applicant’s in-service clinical diagnosis (Personality Disorder) fell into a category of disorders not considered a disability by either the Military Department or the DVA. There is no evidence in the applicant’s case that proves or suggests that the diagnosis issued to her at the time of her military service was a diagnostic error. The military Disability Evaluation System, established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law, under Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), only offer compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries which specifically rendered a member unfit for continued active service and were the cause for career termination; and then only for the degree of impairment present at the time of separation and not based on future occurrences. The clinical evaluators at the time of the applicant’s service found no evidence of a disqualifying mental health disorder that warranted a Medical Evaluation Board and processing via a Physical Evaluation Board, as a compensable disability under the provisions of AFR 35-4, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, and Separation. At the same time, operating under a different set of laws (Title 38 U.S.C.), with a different purpose, the DVA is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition determined service incurred, without regard to [and independent of] its demonstrated or proven impact upon a service member’s retainability, fitness to serve, narrative reason for separation, or length of time passed since discharge. This is the reason why an individual can be found fit for release from military service for one reason and yet sometime thereafter receive a compensation rating from the DVA for one or more service-connected, but not militarily unfitting conditions. The DVA is also empowered to conduct periodic re-evaluations for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating awards (increase or decrease) as the level of impairment from a given service connected medical condition may vary (improve or worsen, affecting future employability) over the lifetime of the veteran. A complete copy of the BCMR Clinical Mental Health evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 4 January 2016, a copy of the BCMR Clinical Mental Health evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response Exhibit F). FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD: Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. After a careful review of the applicant's contentions, documentation submitted in support of the request, and the available evidence of record, we are not convinced the applicant has provided sufficient evidence for us to conclude that she is the victim of an error or injustice. We also note the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552, Correction of military records: claims incident thereto, and AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records. Therefore, because we do not find it would be in the interest of justice to recommend granting relief, and the applicant has offered no plausible reason for the delay in filing the application, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file the application. Accordingly, we find the application untimely. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness. It is the decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03812 in Executive Session on 18 February 2016, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03812 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 August 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 12 November 2014. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 December 2014. Exhibit E. Memorandum, BCMR Clinical Mental Health Consultant, dated 29 December 2015. Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, Dated 4 January 2016.