RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00176
		INDEX CODE:  110.02
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  16 JULY 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason of “personality disorder” for separation be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge from the Air Force was unfair because of situations beyond his control. He wants his medical records reevaluated to determine that he has no personality disorder. There is no way after four years anyone in good faith could determine that he had a pre-existing personality disorder.

In support of his application, applicant provides a letter from his MA provider, a personal letter, and DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal From the Armed Forces of the United States

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 5 April 2000. He was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4) having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of   5 August 2002.  

On 2 June 2004, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force for a condition that interferes with military service; Sleepwalking and Mental Disorders-Personality Disorder under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, paragraphs 5.11.2 and 5.11.9.1.  The specific reasons for this action: 

	(1) It has been determined he has a mental disorder that significantly affects his ability to serve in the military. This is based on the determination of his recent mental health evaluation that diagnosis him with a personality disorder that is so severe that his ability to function effectively in the military environment is significantly impaired is the correct recommendation and he has a history of sleepwalking.

	(2)  On or about 28 October 2003, the applicant was derelict in the performance of his duties when he failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: his dental appointment at Dentrust Dental, Aurora, Colorado. For this action he received a Letter of Reprimand dated 31 October 2003.

	(3)  On or about 8 August 2003, the applicant failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: 460th Security Forces Squadron, Buckley Air Force Base, Colorado. For this action he received a Letter of Counseling.

	(4)  On or about 20 November 2002, the applicant failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: mandatory Commander’s Call at the 460th Security Forces Squadron, Buckley Air Force Base, Colorado. For this action he received an MFR/Verbal Counseling dated 22 November 2002.

	(5)  On or about 1 June 2002, the applicant failed both dormitory room inspection and failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: 460th Security Forces Squadron, Buckley Air Force Base, Colorado. For this action he received a Letter of Reprimand dated 3 June 2002.

	(6)  On or about 13 November 2001, the applicant was derelict in the performance of his duties when he failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: his dental appointment at Dentrust Dental, Aurora, Colorado. For this action he received a MFR/Verbal Counseling dated 14 November 2001.

On 2 June 2004, the commander advised the applicant of his right to consult legal counsel, to submit statements in his own behalf, or waive his rights after consulting with counsel.

On 7 June 2004, the commander directed the applicant be discharged from the United States Air Force with an honorable discharge without the opportunity for probation and rehabilitation. 

On 10 June 2004, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, Sleepwalking and Mental Disorders - Personality Disorder, with service characterized as honorable. He served 4 years, 2 months and 6 days of total active military service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted.  The applicant was administratively separated under provisions for unsuitability due to personality disorder after being returned early from a deployment due to erratic behavior including sleep walking, visual hallucinations, and comments interpreted by a supervisor as a veiled threat against the supervisor. The applicant submits a civilian psychological exam concluding the applicant does not have a personality disorder and his problems were due to stress, medication and lack of sleep.

Personality disorders are enduring patterns of maladjustment in the individual’s personality structure which are not medically disqualifying but may render the individual unsuitable for further military service and may be cause for administrative discharge by the individual’s unit commander. A Personality Disorder is 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. Symptoms of 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 time.  Often the nature of military duty places greater pressures on the individual than on civilians in similar duties, and these disorders frequently become more manifest.

The preponderance of evidence in the records clearly supports a diagnosis of personality disorder that rendered the applicant unsuitable for continued military service. His documented history of long standing behaviors and psychological problems that resulted in significant impairment of occupational functioning indicates that he is at risk for recurrent problems under similar circumstances of military occupational and personal stress. Evidence of the record clearly documents problems consistent with maladaptive personality traits pre-dating his deployment. The evidence of the record clearly shows that the applicant manifested behaviors and psychological symptoms that rendered him unsuitable for military service and that those behaviors and symptoms were aggravated by the mental and physical stresses of deployment to a combat zone. A history of a personality disorder or maladaptive traits severe enough to warrant administrative discharge is permanently disqualifying for reenlistment into the military. The evidence submitted by the applicant does not overcome the evidence of service records or establish an error. Action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law. 

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 23 December 2005, for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of 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 Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden to show that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  With respect to the applicant’s request for a reevaluation, the Board notes the mental health record indicated the applicant was diagnosed with Axis II, Personality Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified and demonstrated a history of behaviors that were consistent with a diagnosis of a personality disorder. Often, mental health evaluations obtained following separation are performed without the benefit of long term occupational or social historical information critical to identifying the behavioral patterns characteristics of personality disorder. The evaluation the applicant sought in November 2004 was a one time interview, did not include psychological testing, was performed nearly a year after he was deployed to a combat zone and does not exclude the diagnosis of personality disorder. The narrative reason for separation of personality disorder in this case is appropriate.  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 Docket Number BC-2004-01065 in Executive Session on 8 February 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Chair
			Member
		       Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 6 Jan 05, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 19 Dec 05.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Dec 05.

	
	Chair