RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01795

  						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation (block 28) on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued in conjunction with his 10 Apr 03 separation, be changed from Personality Disorder to Medical Separation.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His administrative separation should be considered a medical separation.  

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; letters of support from two physicians; a memorandum for the record from his former supervisor; emails from his former civilian commander, and his Department of Veterans Affairs’ rating decision dated 21 Feb 14.  

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 3 Jul 01.

On 28 Nov 01, applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failing a dorm inspection.

On 12 Dec 01, he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failure to go.  

On 26 Dec 01, he received a LOR for failure to go.

On 22 Apr 02, he received a LOR for having an overnight guest in his dorm room.

On 22 Jul 02, he received a LOR for having an overnight guest in his dorm room.

On 10 Jan 03, he received a LOR for failure to obey a lawful order. 

On 24 Feb 03, the installation inpatient psychiatrist reported the applicant had a diagnosis of Personality Disorder and the severity of the condition results in significant impairment in the ability to function in a military environment.  The inpatient psychiatrist recommended administrative separation would be in the best interests of the applicant and the military.

On 5 Mar 03, the applicant acknowledged receipt of his referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) based on his unacceptable bearing and behavior on and off duty resulting in numerous reprimands and establishment of an Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

On 8 Mar 03, the Chief, Life Skills Support Center reported the applicant had been a patient since 31 Dec 02 due to allegations of spouse physical abuse (applicant the victim) and sleep difficulties and recommended he be expeditiously administratively separated.  

On 25 Mar 03, the squadron commander notified the applicant she had initiated administrative discharge action based on his diagnosis of a Personality Disorder which caused him to be unable to function in a military environment.  

On 26 Mar 03, the applicant waived his right to submit statements on his behalf.  On 27 Mar 03, the wing Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) found the administrative discharge action to be legally sufficient and on 1 Apr 03, the discharge authority directed he be honorably discharged from the Air Force.

On 10 Apr 03, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge with a narrative reason for separation of “personality disorder.”  He was credited with one year, nine months, and eight days of active service, including 1 year, 5 months, and 28 days of foreign service.   

On 7 Jan 04, the applicant’s records was administratively corrected to include the Air Force Overseas Long Tour Ribbon (AFOR-LT).  No Board action.

On 4 Mar 13, in accordance with BC-2012-01482, the applicant’s record was administratively corrected to include the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal (GWOT-SM), without Board action.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.  

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR-SEP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  According to AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, airman may be discharged based upon one of the physical or mental conditions when the commander determines the condition interferes with assignment or duty performance.  When a psychiatrist or a PhD-level clinical psychologist confirms a diagnosis of a mental disorder that is so severe the member’s ability to function effectively in the military environment is significantly impaired and the commander chooses not to initiate separation action, the commander must have the decision reviewed by the discharge authority.  The commander was provided a report that indicated the applicant had been a patient since 13 Dec 02 and his condition was so severe his ability to function effectively in the military environment was significantly impaired.  His discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and therefore, the type of discharge and narrative reason for separation are correct.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR-SEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFBCMR Medical Consultant deferred his recommendation and opines the applicant has not met the burden of proof of error or injustice that warrants the desired change of the record.  However, the Medical Consultant recommends the applicant receive the benefit of an independent review and recommendation of his case by a psychiatrist or psychologist, IAW National Defense Authorization Act 2015, Section 521.  The applicant was evaluated by both a military psychologist and a military psychiatrist following several episodes of care during the applicant’s military service; both who characterized the applicant’s pattern of behavior as due to a Personality Disorder.  The fact that the applicant has since received a different diagnosis which is compensable under Title 38, United States Code, should not automatically invalidate as erroneous the diagnosis he received by equally competent mental health authorities during his military service.  

A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor recommends changing the reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority.  The Psychiatric Advisor notes the first striking inconsistency noticed in the file is the portrayal of the applicant by his supervisor at the time and the applicant’s description on the Enlistment Performance Report (EPR).  His supervisor remembers him as an “affable, diligent young man, who performed all USAF mission related tasks at or above standards”.  This sharply contrasts the statement from the EPR “Struggled and continues to have difficulty adjusting to military life-received numerous verbal and written counseling’s, LORs, and a UIF for unacceptable bearing and behavior on and off duty”.  The evaluator concluded “A substandard performer who lacks good judgment and needs constant over the shoulder supervision”.  This psychiatric advisor is truly bedazzled by such colossal discrepancy.  

However, what is even more puzzling is the applicant’s character of service and the reason for discharge.  After 5 LORs in 2 years, he was given honorable discharge, despite the fact that more appropriate characterization of service for an airman with so many disciplinary actions would be general discharge.  Listing the reason for discharge as a Personality Disorder, does not seem to be appropriate given the applicant’s service history.  Even though, the applicant was given the diagnosis of a personality disorder by a behavioral health specialist, on record review, it appears that his poor work performance was the main trigger for his discharge and Unsatisfactory Performance discharge AFI 36-3208, Chapter 5, Section E paragraph 26.1.1 would be the most applicable.  

All this information makes one wonder about the true underlying factors involved in the applicant’s separation.  Unfortunately, this consultant is deprived of any medical records from 2001-2003 and has no information upon which to form an opinion and the following discussion includes many educated speculations.  The applicant reported on his Compensation and Pension (C&P) exam at the DVA that he has a history of learning disability and in high school he was in the special education class.  Therefore, it is clear, that he had some cognitive deficits; however, the Psychiatric Advisory has no knowledge of its nature and extent.  It is unclear how he was accepted into the Air Force, but it is possible that his poor work performance was directly related to his learning disability.  The neuropsychological evaluation performed by the DVA indicates some cognitive insufficiencies, but notes that it is multifactorial in nature (head injury, drug abuse, mood, learning disabilities).  However, even with all the contributing factors, the degree of the cognitive disorder is mild, therefore, it cannot fully explain the work performance described in the applicant’s EPR.  It is possible that the applicant had suffered more severe symptoms in the proximity to the incident of the head trauma, but there is no clinical documentation to support this.  This consultant will stop her speculation at this point, since the number of factors that could be responsible for the applicant’s presentation could be numerous, and unless additional information is provided this provider won’t be able to recreate the events of 2003.  

Finally, for awareness, the Department of Veterans Affairs is authorized, under Title 38 United States Code, to offer compensation for any medical condition with a nexus with military service, without regard its proven impact upon a former Service member’s fitness to serve, the narrative reason for release from Service, or the duration of time passed since separation.  This is the reason why an individual may be released from Service for one reason and later receive a compensation rating for one or more medical conditions that were not considered militarily unfitting or eligible for military disability processing at the time of military Service.  The DVA is also empowered to conduct periodic re-evaluations for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating determinations (increase or decrease) as the level of impairment from a given medical condition may vary (worsen or improve) over the lifetime of the veteran. To the contrary, the military Disability Evaluation System (DES), 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 “snapshot”  time of separation and not based on post-service progression of disease or injury.  Therefore, even though the Department of Veterans Affairs has granted compensation for the applicant’s medical condition, this evidence does not invalidate the appropriateness of the military discharge disposition in 2003.  

The Psychiatric Advisor appreciates applicant’s service to this country, nonetheless, unless additional clinical information from 2001-2003 time period is presented for the review, the Psychiatric Advisor would not be able to substantiate the applicant qualified for a medical separation/discharge.  However, in accordance to the above discussion of the applicant’s reason for discharge the Board might consider changing the reason for discharge from “Personality Disorder” to “Secretarial Authority.”  

A complete copy of the AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor evaluation is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 13 Jul 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F).  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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, we believe the applicant is the victim of an error or injustice.  We note the comments of AFPC/DPSOR-SEP indicating that relief should be denied because the applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  We also note the comments of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant that the applicant was evaluated by both a military psychologist and a military psychiatrist following several episodes of care during the applicant’s military service; both who characterized the applicant’s pattern of behavior as due to a Personality Disorder.  Nonetheless, we believe a preponderance of the evidence substantiates that corrective action is warranted.  We, therefore, agree with the opinion and recommendation of the AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor and adopt her rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant’s narrative reason for separation would be more accurately depicted as “Secretarial Authority.”  Accordingly, we recommend the applicant's records be corrected as indicated below.	

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 10 April 2003, he was honorably discharged with a narrative reason for separation of “Secretarial Authority,” and a separation code of “JFF.”

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-01795 in Executive Session on 16 Aug 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

All members voted to correct the records as recommended.  The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-01795 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Apr 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR-SEP, dated 8 Jun 15.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, BCMR Med Consultant, dated 30 Oct 15.
	Exhibit E.  Memorandum, Psychiatric Advisor, dated 24 Jun 16.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Jul 16.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.