RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03843

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reason for separation of Personality Disorder be removed from her record.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Almost 30 years ago she was sent a letter stating Personality Disorder would be removed from her record.  She recently found out that it had not been removed.  She received the designation based on her suicide attempts due to repeated rapes, sexual assault and harassment by the males in her unit.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 2 June 1981.

On 13 December 1983, the applicant’s commander notified her that he was recommending her discharge from the Air Force for a Character and Behavior disorder.  The specific reason for the discharge action was on 28 November 1983, the applicant was diagnosed by the Psychiatric Department with a mixed personality disorder, chronic severe, with passive-aggressive, histrionic and borderline traits.  It was noted the applicant’s condition affected her ability to function in the military.  

On 20 December 1983, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification for discharge and waived her right to submit a statement in her own behalf.  On that same date, the legal office reviewed the case and found it to be legally sufficient and recommended the applicant be honorably discharged.

The discharge authority concurred and directed the applicant be discharged with an honorable characterization of service.

On 23 December 1983, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge with a narrative reason for separation of character and behavior disorder, and was credited with 2 years, 6 months, and 21 days of active service.   

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and the AFBCMR Psychiatric Consultant which are attached at Exhibits C and D.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  According to Air Force Regulation 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, Conditions That Interfere with Military Service (Character and Behavior Disorder) an airman may be discharged for a physical or mental condition when the condition interferes with assignment or duty performance.  A psychiatrist or a PhD-level clinical psychologist must confirm the diagnosis of the disorder and that it is so severe the member’s ability to function effectively in the military environment is significantly impaired.  

The commander was provided a report that indicated the applicant became a patient after being admitted to the hospital after allegedly taking over 10 phenobarbital tablets.  After receiving treatment and undergoing a mental health evaluation, it was determined her condition was not suitable for continued service in the military. 

Based on a review of the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  DP2STM found no evidence of an error or injustice in the applicant’s discharge processing.

The type of discharge, the SPD code and narrative reason for separation are correct as indicated on the applicant’s DD Form 214.

DP2STM recommends denial noting the applicant has not submitted a timely application.  It has been over 30 years since her discharge and she did not provide a valid reason for the delay in filing an application.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2STM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The AFBCMR Psychiatric Consultant recommends a change of the reason for discharge from Character and Behavior Disorder to a Secretarial Authority.  However, the Psychiatric Consultant indicates a review of the applicant’s personnel records has left the Psychiatric Consultant with more questions than answers.  While the applicant’s hospital discharge summary indicates her work performance was poor, her performance reports reflect she was a good performer and did not mention any deficiencies in her work performance.  The assessments on her performance reports were not consistent with the image of the individual, who is unable to perform her duty assignment and whose presence is detrimental to the Air Force.

The applicant’s claim of sexual assault and harassment, could very well be factual, nonetheless at this time it represents unsubstantiated allegations.  The applicant reportedly had a very traumatic past, significant for abusive childhood and history of three suicide attempts, one of them being prior to enlistment.  It is evident that the applicant has suffered from significant mental health problems prior to her entrance into the military, however, she failed to disclose it on her SF Form 93, Report of Medical History, and therefore had a fraudulent enlistment.  With the limited information available for review, at this time, the Psychiatric Consultant is not able to determine with any certainty the applicant’s baseline psychological state and the degree of decompensation due to stressors.  However, the psychiatric determination that the applicant has suffered from a personality disorder, though it might be true, certainly can be disputed, given the diagnostic limitations of the single interview and the history of the military mental health providers using personality disorder diagnosis very liberally.

According to a psychiatric note, the applicant was a single parent of a two-month-old child and was back to work at least three weeks prior to the overdose incident.  To put this into slightly different perspective, the applicant returned to work six weeks after giving birth, to a unit, where she was the only female.  The Psychiatric Consultant doesn’t believe one needs to be very psychologically minded to recognize the complexity of this situation.  By the contemporary military regulations, a female service member is eligible for 12 weeks of maternity leave after the birth of the child.  Returning to duty a month postpartum, would be a very challenging task from a psychological and technical perspective.  Furthermore, the applicant was a single parent, which implies that she had very limited psychosocial support and was obligated to juggle military and parental duties all by herself.  The Psychiatric Consultant assumes that most likely the applicant was very strained in her ability to manage the situation and felt exhausted and overwhelmed.  The observation that she would lock herself in the office, could be simply explained by the fact that she was a nursing mother and needed time to express her breast milk.  The Psychiatric consultant is confident the applicant was not comfortable discussing the issues related to breastfeeding in the testosterone loaded environment.  The military has made great strides in making accommodations for female service members and “pumping” rights of the new-mothers in the place of duty are protected under the Federal regulations.  However, despite increase of awareness and legalization of the rights, to this day women continue experiencing some form of harassment and discrimination from their male comrade, for example, being told that “pumping” should be done in the bathroom facilities.  In the 1980s, the needs of the new-mothers were greatly ignored by the military and our society as a whole, which ultimately created hostile work environment for female service members.  The secrecy of postpartum process, lack of support and understanding certainly generated the harsh work environment that led to the applicant’s career termination.  Furthermore, it is interesting to note, that there was no mentioning of the Family Care Plan (FCP) by the applicant’s Command or the behavioral health provider.  This plan is not just a formality in the modern military, but a requirement for “single parents who have custody of a child and bear sole or joint responsibility for the care of children under the age of 19 or others unable to care for themselves in the absence of the member”, as per AFI 36-3809 (sic), Family Care Plans.  This approach prevents child neglect and ensures appropriate care and supervision of the military children.

A complete copy of the AFBCMR Psychiatric Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluation and the AFBCMR Psychiatric Consultant evaluation were forwarded to the applicant on 1 November 2016, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

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.  While we note the AFBCMR Psychiatric Consultant’s recommendation to change the reason for discharge from Character and Behavior Disorder to a Secretarial Authority, we also noted the Psychiatric Consultant’s comment that based on the limited information available for review, at this time, the Psychiatric Consultant is not able to determine with any certainty the applicant’s baseline psychological state and the degree of decompensation due to stressors, thus, we were not persuaded that the narrative reason for separation should be changed.  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 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603.  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-2015-03843 in Executive Session on 24 January 2017 and 1 February 2017, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Aug 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 11 Mar 16.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFBCMR Psychiatric Consultant, 
  dated 19 Oct 16.
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Nov 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.