RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03461

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her military personnel records be corrected by removing her diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) and replace it with Military Sexual Trauma (MST) and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Because of this incorrect diagnosis of BPD, she was not allowed to re-enlist and fulfill her 20 years of active duty (AD) service.  She argues that multiple diagnosis by Mental Health (MH) professionals from 2010-2013 show that BPD was not an accurate diagnosis.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 17 Jun 98.

On 23 Jun 11, the applicant was rendered a referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), overall performance assessment rating of 3, for the period 2 May 10 thru 25 May 11.  She received the referral report specifically for the rating DOES NOT MEET STANDARDS in section III, item 2, and comments in section VI pertaining to her failure to meet expected Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) conduct and responsibilities on and off duty.  

On 28 Jun 11, the applicant’s commander recommended her for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB)/Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).  His recommendation was based on her medical condition causing her to become highly unreliable, and not able to perform all duties without restrictions, limitations, and workarounds. 

On 10 Aug 11, a MEB report referred the applicant to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB).  The MEB established the following diagnosis: alcohol dependence, adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features.  

On 26 Sep 11, a PEB found the applicant’s medical condition (alcohol dependence, adjustment disorder, borderline personality disorder) unsuiting rather than unfitting, and therefore, not subject to Disability law/policy.  

On 18 Oct 11, the Secretary of the Air Force directed the applicant be returned to duty. 

On 6 Feb 12, the applicant was rendered an EPR for the period 26 May 11 thru 30 Dec 11, with an overall performance assessment rating of “4”.  

On 7 Mar 13, the applicant was rendered a referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), overall performance assessment rating of 2, for the period 31 Dec 11 thru 15 Feb 13.  She received the referral report specifically for the rating DOES NOT MEET STANDARDS in section III, item 2, pertaining to her alcohol use while deployed and after her return. 

On 17 Sep 13, the applicant was not recommended for reenlistment due to the following: 

a.	On 15 Oct 10 – LOR – Failure to Obey.

b.	On 16 Mar 11 – Failed the ADAPT program. 

c.	On 20 Jul 11 _ LOR – Failure to Go.

On 11 Nov 13, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with 15 years, 4 months, and 25 days of active service.  

On 17 Nov 15, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicant’s request to change the reason and authority for her discharge and to change her reenlistment (RE) code.  The Board determined that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by AFMOA/SGHW, and the AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor which are attached at Exhibits C and D.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The reason behind the commander’s decision to deny the applicant’s reenlistment request was based on “continued problem with alcohol, obeying direct orders, and providing for her dependent.”  The applicant appealed to the AFDRB in 2015 with a request to change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code.  On the review of the applicant’s case, the Board concluded, “the applicant was afforded ample treatment opportunities through the Air Force for her alcohol dependence.  She also was provided with appropriate assistance and support in response to her allegation of MST.  The Board found that the applicant’s non-selection for reenlistment was warranted in light of the facts and circumstances, including the applicant’s continued problems with alcohol, obeying orders, and providing for her dependent child.  The Board found no evidence of impropriety or inequity that warranted the requested relief.”  The applicant’s assertion that the diagnosis of BPD was accountable for her career termination has no foundation based on the review conducted by Psychiatric Advisor.  BPD was listed as a category III (conditions that are not separately unfitting and not compensable or ratable) by informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), based on the applicant’s Narrative Psychiatric Summary.  Nevertheless, diagnosis of BPD did not alter applicant’s ratings.  PEB has considered the applicant’s PTSD, however, the applicant reported minimal symptoms as a result of good response to treatment, and therefore, PTSD was not found to be an unfitting condition. 

The applicant was involved in multiple inpatient and outpatient treatment programs and has been able to overcome her struggles with PTSD; nevertheless, she succumbed to her addiction to alcohol, which ultimately resulted in her career dissolution.  There is insufficient basis in her records to support the applicant’s request.

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

AFMOA/SGHW recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The applicant was admitted and treated at 6 different inpatient facilities 13 times for alcohol relapses, residential substance abuse treatment, and/or suicidal ideations.  Her consistent diagnosis was Alcohol Dependence.  Additional diagnoses have included Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), history of PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder, Depressive Disorder, Depression, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, and Borderline Personality Disorder.  In addition, the applicant alleged she was sexually assaulted by her supervisor in 2006.  The applicant’s commander’s recommendation for administrative discharge did not contain any language regarding a diagnosis.  Despite the lack of a discharge board (canceled), the BPD was a diagnosis reflected in and substantiated by documentation.  MST is not a diagnosis, and there is not sufficient documentation provided to change the records as she requests.  

A complete copy of the AFMOA/SGHW evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and the AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 31 Jan 17 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E).  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 injustice.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor and AFMOA/SGHW, and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion 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 requested relief.

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-2015-03461 in Executive Session on 21 Mar 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-03461 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Aug 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor, dated
			  18 Oct 16.  
Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFMOA/SGHW, dated 18 Jan 17, w/atchs.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Jan 17.

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.