RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-05273

	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST.  That her narrative reason for separation of “Substandard Performance of Duty: Character/Behavior Disorder – ILO Invol Discharge,” be changed.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTION.  Her discharge should have been for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) related to Military Sexual Trauma (MST).  She was raped when she first entered the military and was treated unjust, which compounded the trauma she had already been through.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS.  The applicant received an honorable discharge on 25 May 88, with a narrative reason for separation of “Substandard Performance of Duty: Character/Behavior Disorder – ILO Invol Discharge.”  On 5 Feb 90, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicant’s request to change her reason for discharge.  For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits C and D.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION.  AFPC/DP2STM-SEP recommends denying the application indicating it is untimely.  Additionally, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  Lastly, at the time of the applicant’s discharge, the SPD code “BFX” used the verbiage “substandard performance of duty and character/behavior disorder.”  The SPD code has been revised and now reflects the verbiage “Personality Disorder.”  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

The BCMR Psychiatric Consultant recommends denying the application.  The applicant was diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder and was in the military under a fraudulent enlistment.  She did not experience PTSD while in the military so there is insufficient evidence to warrant the desired change of the record.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION.  The Board sent copies of the Air Force evaluations to the applicant on 25 Aug 17 for comment (Exhibit E), and the applicant replied on 18 Sep 17.  In her response, the applicant contended her diagnosis of personality disorder was based on faulty assessments and incorrect data as a result of being gang raped.  At the time, her intention was to study therapeutic interaction and the records used to diagnose her were a part of her studies.  However, because she did not believe she had any problems worthy of therapy, she created most of what went on by acting out because this is what she learned.  Since then, she has worked as a psychiatric nurse for 30 years and teaches clinical in psychiatric nursing at two universities.  She asserts that she never had nor have a personality disorder.  Her way of dealing with this horrific experience was to repress it and deny it happened.  During this time, the Air Force medical personnel could not detect her PTSD from the MST.  Therefore, the Air Force was negligent by placing her in unsecure housing off base where she was raped.  Additionally, she was incorrectly labeled with a borderline personality disorder when she was experiencing posttraumatic stress from MST and later terminated from the Air Force.  Lastly, it has taken until 2012 for the military to recognize that MST exists.  She could not find the she needed until 2014 after the Department of Veterans Affairs finally recognized that PTSD from MST is an epidemic problem.  Therefore, the fraud in her case is that she was framed with a personality disorder when she was suffering trauma from rape.  The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES:

1.  The application was timely filed.  

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.  

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant’s assertions are duly noted; however, the Board concurs with BCMR Psychiatric Consultant and AFPC/DP2STM-SEP and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS:  The APPLICANT be informed that the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION: The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-05273 in Executive Session on 28 Mar 18:

			      , Panel Chair
			, Panel Member
			    , Panel Member

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A: Applicant’s application, DD Form 149, dated 21 Mar 17, w/atchs.
Exhibit B: Documentary evidence, including excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C: Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 7 Jun 16.
Exhibit D: Advisory opinion, BCMR Psychiatric Consultant, dated 26 Jun 17.
Exhibit E: Notification of Advisory, AFBCMR to applicant, dated 25 Aug 17.
Exhibit F: Applicant’s response to Exhibit F, dated 18 Sep 17, w/atchs.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.