RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-05198 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2C (Involuntary separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service) be changed to allow him to reenlist. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The process that led to his discharge was rushed and done incorrectly. The doctor was “known to just sign-off on paperwork that is sent his way and does not actually do it correctly.” His friend told his supervisor that he was suicidal which was not true. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, copies of medical records and a letter from a physician stating the applicant was given a psychiatric evaluation that revealed no evidence of a mental health condition requiring treatment with therapy or medication. In addition, the applicant completed a five panel urine drug screen that was negative for the presence of illicit substances. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 26 Feb 13, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On or about 10 Feb 14, the applicant disobeyed an order by his supervisor to get a haircut. Further, on or about 11 Feb 14, the applicant negligently damaged military property by kicking a large hole into the wall of one of his peers’ room. For this misconduct, he was given a Letter of Reprimand (LOR). On 13 May 14, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3608, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraphs 5.11.9.1 and 5.11.9.6. Specifically, the applicant was diagnosed with Depressive Disorder NOS, Moderate, in partial remission; Personality Disorder NOS (Borderline and Narcissistic Features); and Occupational Problem. Before recommending discharge, the commander noted his decision to recommend administrative discharge was based on an assessment of the examining psychologist. The psychologist concluded the applicant’s disorders represented an on-going and highly significant threat to his ability to effectively function as a military member. His prognosis for being able to successfully meet the demands of his job, the mission of his command, and the ability to be worldwide qualified as to serve the best interest of the Air Force was poor. The commander did not recommend probation and rehabilitation. Furthermore, the commander noted the applicant was briefed that his disorders did not constitute a disability through the Air Force. He acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and after consulting legal counsel, elected to submit a statement on his own behalf. On 21 May 14, the Staff Judge Advocate found the case to be legally sufficient and recommended the applicant receive a honorable discharge without the offer of probation or rehabilitation. On 27 May 14, the discharge authority directed the applicant be honorably discharged from the Air Force with a narrative reason for separation of Adjustment Disorder and a RE Code of 2C. He was credited with one year, three months and five days of active service. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. The applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice in reference to his RE code, but believes his discharge processing was not done correctly. He provides no proof to support his request, but explains what he believes happened. The applicant received a RE code of 2C based on his involuntary separation with an honorable character of service. A complete copy of the DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial, indicating the applicant has not met the burden of proof of an error or injustice to warrant the desired change to his record. The applicant’s enthusiasm to reenter military service and the allegation that one of his health care providers was reportedly “known to just sign-off on paperwork that is sent his way and does not actually do it correctly.” However, under the presumption of regularity and the review for legal sufficiency, the Medical Consultant cannot invalidate as erroneous the extensive assessments conducted by those most familiar with his performance and behavior; notwithstanding his otherwise commendable volunteer activities. The reason for discharge is erroneously listed as an Adjustment Disorder. The applicant was not diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder. However, changing the diagnosis to Personality Disorder or character disorder would be considered a detriment, based upon comparative public perceptions of the two. The Consultant also acknowledged the letter from the applicant’s civilian physician who found no active evidence of an active mental disorder or defect. However, the decision for his separation was based upon evidence at the time of his military service. A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 9 Sep 15, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BMCR Psychiatric Consultant recommends denial. The decisions of the Military Department did not represent an error or injustice. The applicant started exhibiting problems about eight months into his training, which resulted in the psychiatric admission to the hospital. The applicant feels that it was a result of misunderstanding and he did not need to be there. There was no opportunity to review the records from the applicant’s psychiatric hospitalization and outpatient treatment but it is evident from the record that the issues did not stop there. It looks like the applicant has enjoyed some period of stability, but that culminated on 2 Feb 14, when he became very agitated, punched a hole in the wall, attempted suicide, and had to be restrained by multiple people. This consultant is actually surprised that those unsafe behaviors did not land the applicant back in the psychiatric unit. The applicant claims that running out of Celexa instigated this episode but it is highly unlikely. Even if she is to agree with the applicant that his first hospitalization was a big misunderstanding, his post-discharge behaviors would disprove that allegation. The second argument of the applicant is that the process “was rushed and not done correctly.” On 28 Feb 14, a staff psychologist conducted a very thorough evaluation and determined that the applicant suffers from a Personality Disorder. Personality disorders form a class of mental disorders that are characterized by long-lasting, rigid patterns of thought and behavior. Because of the inflexibility and pervasiveness of these patterns, they can cause serious problems and issues in a person's life. Personality disorders are categorized by clusters of characteristics that share common themes or elements. In the case of the applicant, he has been diagnosed with a mix of Borderline (BPD) and Narcissistic Personality Disorders (NPDs), which are from cluster B. Even though the applicant also carried the diagnosis of depressive disorder, it did not appear to be problematic or unfitting at the time of evaluation. Addressing the applicant’s claim that the process was done incorrectly, the applicant was discharged specifically for “Personality Disorder,” however, his DD Form 214 erroneously lists the reason for discharge as “Adjustment Disorder.” It is not known if this was an accidental mistake or his command deliberately did not put the diagnosis of Personality Disorder on his document to avoid exposing him to a life-long stigma of the condition. The Board can correct this mistake at the request of the applicant, but the diagnosis to Personality Disorder or character disorder would be considered a detriment in this consultant’s opinion. The applicant presented a copy of his psychiatric evaluation from a civilian provider, but it has less validity than the military clinical records, since personality disorders are traditionally not diagnosed after one clinical interview. A complete copy of the Psychiatric Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit F. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 28 Mar 16, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit G). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 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 an error or an injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and do not find that it supports a determination that the applicant was improperly separated from active duty in 2014. Based on the preponderance of the evidence, it appears the applicant’s discharge was properly adjudicated and we found no evidence which would lead us to believe that his RE code was in error or contrary to the governing Air Force instructions. The applicant’s case has undergone an exhaustive review by the BCMR Medical Psychiatric Consultant and we did not find the evidence provided, sufficient to overcome her assessment of the case. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and the BCMR Medical Psychiatric Consultant and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has suffered from an error or injustice. 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 the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material 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-2014-05198 in Executive Session on 29 Apr 16, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Nov 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 17 Feb 15. Exhibit D. Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 3 Sep 15. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Sep 15. Exhibit F. Memorandum, BCMR Psychiatric Consultant, dated 18 Mar 16. Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Mar 16.