ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03297 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reentry (RE) code of 2C [Involuntary Separated with an Entry Level Separation (ELS)], separation program designator code of JFX (Personality Disorder), and narrative reason for discharge of “Personality Disorder,” be changed to allow her to enlist in the Air National Guard (ANG). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her diagnosis was incorrect, which led to her separation. When she initially entered the Air Force at age 18 in 2004, the recruiter promised her a position in the finance career field, but instead she was assigned to a medical technician position while at Basic Military Training. Therefore, she wanted to get out. She went to the psychiatrist and was “untruthful” on some questions on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) in order to appear unfit for military service. As a result she was diagnosed with a “personality disorder” and discharged. She has since matured, completed her degree at the Medical University of South Carolina as a cardiovascular perfusionist, has two mental health evaluations indicating her “issue” did not exist and she is able to rejoin the military, and would like to apply to the ANG. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. RESUME OF CASE: On 28 Nov 06, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s original request to change her RE code so she could reenlist. In the original case, the applicant contended she recognized her mistake and regretted leaving the Air Force. In their denial the Board explained they were not convinced her symptoms would not reappear should she again be exposed to the rigors of active duty. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s original request and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit E. On 19 Feb 14, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration reiterating her contention she regretted her mistake. She submitted a number of letters of support from medical professionals and individuals who have known her recently, to include a psychiatrist from 2005 indicating her adjustment disorder had been resolved, and a clinical psychologist in 2014 who treated her from Feb 13 through Sep 13 stating “she seems to have matured quite a bit.” In support of her request, the applicant also researched and submitted a large number of previous AFBCMR cases in which applicants were separated with varying mental health issues and later allowed to reapply to the military (Exhibit F). AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant recommends granting, indicating there is evidence of an error or injustice. An adjustment disorder is diagnosed when an individual’s emotional and/or behavioral reaction to a stressor is determined to be out of proportion or excessive in the context of the given stressor. It is expected to remit upon the stressor’s resolution. A personality disorder is stable and marked by a pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from cultural expectations and is pervasive and inflexible with the onset of early adulthood. In 12 May 04, the applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with depressed mood and personality disorder not otherwise specified. Of note, the evaluating psychologist did not indicate the personality disorder drove his recommendation for administrative separation, but focused solely on the applicant’s adjustment disorder in the rationale for separation. On 9 Feb 05, an Air Force psychologist concluded the applicant would not be a good fit for the Air Force at that time. Her adjustment disorder had resolved but she continued to exhibit characteristics of a personality disorder. The applicant underwent another psychological assessment in Apr 14, which revealed an individual with the capability to manage stress and respond appropriately in everyday life. The Clinical Psychology Consultant opines the evidence the applicant suffers from a personality disorder has weakened substantially over time as alternative diagnostic opinions were obtained and she performed successfully in the medical field. Yet, the diagnosis of adjustment disorder must be addressed. The applicant has expressed an interest in becoming a physician’s assistant and also noted she would like to continue performing duties related to her current work in cardiovascular perfusion. However, it is unlikely she would be permitted to perform such duties. Thus, there remains a risk the applicant will again become dissatisfied with her assigned career field and experience a strong adjustment reaction. The applicant has constructed a strong argument in favor of her request and her functioning across the years post-discharge does not support the presence of a personality disorder. Recommend granting her request. However, the applicant is not absolved of her responsibility to accurately portray her mental health treatment record when applying for military service, such as her psychotherapy treatment in 2013. A complete copy of the AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit G. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 30 Jun 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit H). 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 to timely file. 3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case. While we note the recommendation to grant the applicant’s request from the AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant because the evidence the applicant suffers from a personality disorder has weakened substantially over time, given that she intentionally lied to authorities during her first term of service in order to establish a basis for her own separation, and since the AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant feels if she reenters service there remains a risk she will again become dissatisfied with her assigned career field and experience a strong adjustment reaction, the Board believes her current DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, is an accurate reflection of her period of service, and she has not been the victim of an error or an injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2005-03297 in Executive Session on 11 Aug 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary was considered: Exhibit E.  ROP, dated 6 Dec 06. Exhibit F.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Feb 14, w/atchs. Exhibit G.  Memorandum, AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant, dated 9 Jun 15. Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jun 15.