RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02344
		INDEX CODE:  110.02

		COUNSEL:  None

		HEARING DESIRED: No

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  1 FEB 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Narrative Reason for Separation on his DD Form 214 be removed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The words Unsuitability - Personality Disorder have hampered him in obtaining full-time and gainful employment.  The doctors at the Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital told him that his reason for separation was a catch all phrase and does more harm than good.

He was turned down for the last three jobs he applied for because of the narrative reason on his DD Form 214.

Applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserves on 23 April 1975 for a period of six years as an airman basic (AB).

Between 19 March 1980 and 22 December 1980, the applicant was seen on several occasions in the Mental Health Clinic (MHC) for possible child advocacy concerns and marital problems.

On 15 December 1980, the applicant was admitted to the hospital for depression and suicide ideations.

On 6 April 1981, the applicant underwent a mental health evaluation and was diagnosed with an atypical personality disorder.

On 15 June 1981, the applicant was informed of his commander’s intent to recommend him for discharge under the provisions of Air Force Manual (AFM) 39-12 for unsuitablility.  The specific reasons for the discharge action were:

	The 6 April 1981 MHC evaluation diagnosis of personality disorder and the 22 April 1981 letter from the mental health evaluator.  The 22 April 1981 letter further indicated the applicant had a history of unreliability, lying, inability to learn from past mistakes, problems and difficulties, as well as, immaturity, anxiety, agitation and suicide.

The applicant’s Letter of Notification made specific reference to the following instances of inadequate performance by the applicant which were legitimately viewed as manifestations of his diagnosed condition:

	a.	In August 1980, the applicant failed to properly maintain his base quarters, for which he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC).

	b.	On 15 September 1980, the applicant was 45 days delinquent on his Open Mess account, for which he received an LOC.

	c.	On 26 November 1980, the applicant misused a government vehicle (GMV) by using the GMV to check his mail at his private residence, for which he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).

	d.	Prior to December 1980, the applicant received a speeding ticket for going 71 miles per hour (mph) in his private vehicle, used a government vehicle for his personal use and exceeded the base housing area speed limit, for which he received an LOC.

	e.	On 8 December 1980, the applicant misrepresented himself to his supervisor and the Officer in Charge (OIC) by telling them he needed time off to allow his wife to make a special order and to pick up a clothes dryer, when he did not do those things, for which he received an LOC.

	f.	On 15 December 1980, the applicant threatened suicide and he was admitted to the hospital.

	g.	In January 1981, the applicant published inaccurate facts in the “Missile Matters” newsletter, for which he was counseled.

The commander advised applicant of his right to consult legal counsel; present his case to an administrative discharge board; be represented by legal counsel at a board hearing; submit statements in his own behalf in addition to, or in lieu of, the board hearing; or waive the above rights after consulting with counsel.

The commander indicated in his report for discharge action that if his recommendation was approved, the applicant's service would be characterized as general.  He further stated the applicant received numerous written and oral counselings from his superiors, his NCO status was vacated and he was placed on the Control Roster for two consecutive four month periods.

On 27 July 1981, after consulting with counsel, applicant offered a conditional waiver to an administrative discharge board contingent on his receiving a honorable discharge.

A legal review was conducted on 27 July 2001, in which the staff judge advocate (SJA) recommended the applicant’s conditional waiver be accepted and he be discharged with an honorable discharge.

On 29 July 1981, the Discharge Authority accepted the conditional waiver and approved the discharge and ordered the applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge.

Applicant’s performance report profile is listed below.

			PERIOD ENDING		OVERALL EVALUATION

		 19 Dec 76				6
		 19 Dec 77				8
		 19 Dec 78				8
		  5 Nov 79				8
		 18 Sep 80				9

The applicant was discharged on 3 August 1981, in the grade of senior airman with an honorable discharge.  He served 6 years, 1 month and 14 days of active duty service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, states the applicant was discharged for unsuitability due to a personality disorder.  Personality disorders are enduring patterns of maladjustment in the individual’s personal structure which are not medically disqualifying or unfitting and may be a cause for administrative action by the unit commander.  By definition, Personality Disorders are an enduring pattern of thinking, inner experience, feeling, and behaving that is pervasive and inflexible, is relatively stable over time, deviates from the individual’s cultural norms, and causes distress or impairment in social and or occupational functioning.  The features of a Personality Disorder usually become recognizable during adolescence or early adult life.  Personality disorders are frequently exacerbated by stress and may not cause significant problems or be recognized until stressful circumstances result in occupational or social problems.  Manifestations (symptoms and behavior), wax and wane 
over time depending on the nature and degree of stressors present at any given time.  The Medical Consultant further states the applicant’s diagnosis of personality disorder is well supported with his medical and personnel records.  Therefore, based on the documentation provided he recommends the requested relief be denied.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 June 2005, for review and response.  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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure of timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant was discharged from active duty for unsuitability due to a Personality Disorder.  Personality disorders are life long patterns of maladjustment in the individual’s personality which interfere with the individual’s normal social and occupational functioning and may impair the individual’s ability to cope with stress.  Based on the documentation in the applicant's personnel and medical records, it appears the diagnosis was well supported by the evidence of record.  In addition, the applicant has not submitted persuasive evidence that the processing, the reason, and the characterization of the discharge were inappropriate and not accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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-2004-02344 in Executive Session on 4 August 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 18 Jul 04.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated
			7 Jun 05.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jun 05.