RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			  DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-00226 

						  COUNSEL:  
     
     	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her honorable separation be changed to a medical retirement, effective the date of her separation.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 4 Oct 13, the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (DVA) rated her with a service-connected disability rating of 100 percent based upon a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to a sexual assault which took place in 1987 while she was in the Air Force.  The sexual assault resulted in a decline in her mental health.  Her mental disability, diagnosed as Personality Disorder at the time, should have been rated as at least 30 percent disabling.  The symptoms cited by the Air Force as a basis for her discharge, which included panic attacks, depression, and unfit for military duty, meet the criteria for a 30 percent rating at the time of discharge because they show she had a definite impairment in her abilities regarding flexibility, efficiency, and reliability levels.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 16 Jan 85.

On 5 Aug 88, the applicant was evaluated by the Chief of the Department of Psychiatry at her installation, who determined she was “unfit for military duty on the basis of Personality Disorder. Her present maladjustment to military service reflects a life-long pattern of recurrent and immature behavior, as well as an inability to relate effectively to others and is so deeply ingrained and severe as to significantly impair (her) capacity to adapt to and function in the military environment.” 

On 24 Sep 88, the applicant’s commander notified her he was recommending her for discharge for “conditions that interfere with military service.”  The reason for taking his action was the applicant was no longer fit for military duty on the basis of Personality Disorder.  The applicant acknowledged receipt, consulted with legal counsel, and waived her right to submit statements on her own behalf. 

On 12 Oct 88, the case was reviewed and determined to be legally sufficient, and the discharge authority directed the applicant be separated with an honorable discharge. 

On 21 Oct 88, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, with a narrative reason for separation of “Conditions that interfere with Military Service--not disability--Character and Behavior Disorder,” and was credited with three years, nine months, and six days of active service.   

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and Psychiatric Advisor and are attached at Exhibits C and D.

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends changing the narrative reason for separation on the applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, indicating there is evidence of an error or an injustice.  A review of the applicant’s service treatment records, military personnel records, and post-service evidence indicates it is unlikely she actually suffered from a Personality Disorder.  A Personality Disorder would have revealed itself much sooner during the rigors of training and service, both on and off duty.  This reviewer cannot discern, other than the alleged results of psychometric testing, how the conclusion was reached to characterize the applicant as having a Personality Disorder.  

The case file also contains no evidence of a reported assailant or charges against an assailant.  The fact that decades later the applicant has been awarded service-connection and compensation by the DVA for PTSD secondary to military sexual trauma, is not determinative of the applicant’s fitness to serve at the time of separation, nor does it warrant a like reason for discharge.  The Medical Consultant, thus, finds it plausible the mental health providers chose to issue the applicant a diagnosis of Personality Disorder, finding no basis for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB), in order to expedite her expressed desire for separation.  The Medical Consultant is sensitive to the current policies governing victims of sexual assault, to include assuring the possibility of such an occurrence is thoroughly explored prior to any service member’s discharge.  In the case under review, although it is recognized that victims often delay or avoid reporting sexual assault, the applicant elected to disclose her alleged assault for the first time at her 2013 compensation and pension (C&P) examination.  Clearly, although the applicant’s overall mental health may have deteriorated over time, to include changes in diagnosis and treatment, the fact that a plausible nexus was established with her military service is not sufficient to warrant a de facto medical retirement from 1988 for PTSD.  

The applicant and the Board are reminded that, operating under Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), the Military Department only offers compensation for medical conditions that have been shown to interfere with or preclude a member’s ability to perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, and rating.  More importantly the medical condition must be compensable.  At the time of the applicant’s service Adjustment Disorders and Personality Disorders, or any acute non-psychotic maladaptive pattern of behavior were generally considered unsuitable and not eligible for MEB/PEB processing.  Moreover, the evidentiary standard for determining unfitness [for a compensable condition] because of disability, under DoD Instruction 1332.18, Disability Evaluation System, reads, “The Secretary of the Military Department concerned must cite objective evidence in the record, as distinguished from personal opinion, speculation, or conjecture, to determine a Service member is unfit because of disability.”  Additionally, “With the exception of presumption of fitness cases, the Secretary of the Military Department concerned will determine fitness or unfitness for military service on the basis of the preponderance of the objective evidence in the record.”  On the other hand, operating under a different set of laws (Title 38, U.S.C.), with a different purpose, the DVA is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition determined service-incurred, without regard to [and independent of] its demonstrated or proven impact upon a service member’s fitness to serve, the narrative reason for separation, or the length of time since discharge.  This is the reason why an individual can be separated from military service for one reason and yet sometime thereafter receive a compensation rating from the DVA for one or more medical conditions that were found service-connected, but not proven militarily unfitting at the time of release from military service.  The DVA is also empowered to conduct periodic re-evaluations for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating awards (increase or decrease) as the level of impairment from a given service connected medical condition may vary (improve or worsen, affecting future employability) over the lifetime of the veteran.  

The Medical Consultant found insufficient evidence to indicate the applicant suffered from a compensable mental disorder that warranted MEB processing and an unfit finding by a Physical Evaluation Board at the time of release from military service.  Nonetheless, the Medical Consultant opines there was an injustice in characterizing her expressed apprehension for a remote permanent change of station (PCS) and desire to separate as a Personality Disorder; although reportedly reached with objective testing.   Thus, the Medical Consultant did not find the evidence sufficient to award a de facto medical retirement due to PTSD.  However, the Medical Consultant recommends expunging Personality Disorder, and issuing a new DD Form 214 with a change in the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority.  

A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor recommends changing the narrative reason for separation on the applicant’s DD Form 214 to Secretarial Authority, indicating there is evidence of an error or injustice.  Unfortunately, it has been almost 30 years since the applicant’s discharge from the military, and given the age of this case it is challenging for the applicant to obtain sufficient evidence in support of her claim. 

It is a well-known fact sexual violence against female service members within our armed-forces was wide-spread and in most cases the crime was unreported and unprosecuted.  Therefore, the applicant’s silence following the assault is not at all surprising.  Pregnancy tests and sexually transmitted diseases are important indicators of possible sexual assault, however, in the applicant’s case they did not coincide with the date of the reported attack.  The applicant’s parents recall significant changes in the applicant’s behavior, particularly, her frantic plea to leave the military once she got to Korea, and this historic account certainly supports the applicant’s claim she panicked when she met her perpetrator on the plane to her new duty station.  However, the applicant voiced her uncertainties about the future of her military career and her reluctance to PCS to Korea to her mental health providers while still stationed at Davis-Monthan AFB.  Per medical records, the applicant sought mental health treatment in the spring of 1987, following the date of her reported assault, however, the topic of their discussion revolved around interpersonal issues, particularly her ex-husband who worked in the same building.  Finally, the applicant’s duty performance was always excellent and there is no evidence of deterioration of work-related-function even prior to her separation.  The record of the applicant’s stellar performance brings into question her separation altogether.  Personality disorders are chronic conditions and therefore, the statement of the psychiatrist “Unfit for military duty due to personality disorders so deeply experienced and severe as to significantly impair her capacity to adapt and function in military environment” contradicts the applicant’s three stellar EPRs and is therefore inaccurate.  

Readdressing the applicant’s implicit desire for a medical retirement, there is limited evidence her mental health condition had any negative impact on her duty performance.  Furthermore, given the paucity of the medical documentation, assigning the disability rating to the applicant at this time would be based purely on speculation and, therefore, not applicable for the BCMR purposes.  Recommend denial of the applicant’s petition for a medical retirement.  However, recommend changing her narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority.  
A complete copy of the AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor’s evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

In further support of her request, the applicant submits a response to the Air Force Evaluations in which she takes exception to their recommendation to deny her request.  She reiterates her contentions that she was the victim of military sexual trauma, but was misdiagnosed; outlines the details of her experiences surrounding her medical treatment and ultimate separation; reminds the panel members about the Secretary of Defense’s guidance on liberal consideration for survivors of sexual assault; and, again claims she should have been medically retired.  She agrees with the advisory writers that Personality Disorder should be replaced with Secretarial Authority on her DD Form 214, and argues the misdiagnosis of Personality Disorder was the impetus for her being discharged rather than handling her case through the medical process which would have resulted in a medical retirement. (Exhibit F) 

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 to warrant correcting her records to show she received a medical retirement, effective the date of her separation. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and agree with the opinions and recommendations of the AFBCMR Medical and Psychiatric Advisors and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Regarding the applicant’s narrative reason for separation, we again agree with the recommendation of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and Psychiatric Advisor and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice.  Therefore, we recommend the applicant's records be corrected to the extent 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 on 21 October 1988 

she was 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-2016-00226 in Executive Session on 22 May 18 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
Panel Member
Panel Member

All members voted to correct the records as recommended.  The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-00226 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Nov 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFBCMR Medical Advisor, dated 7 Jul 17.
Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor, dated 11 Jul 17.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jul 17.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Oct 17, w/atchs.

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