RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02567 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation be changed from “Conditions Not a Disability” to “Service Connected Disability - 30 percent.” ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Shortly after she was discharged she received a service connected disability rating due to the nature of her separation. She became aware that she was not receiving entitled benefits due to the narrative reason for separation reflected on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ______________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 26 Apr 2000, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 5 Dec 2002, her commander notified her he was recommending she be discharged under the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen. The reason for his proposed action was on 27 Sep 2002, she self-referred to the Life Skills Support Center and began treatment for depression. Since that time, she was seen at the clinic for alcohol abuse and a suicide attempt on 4 Oct 2002. Following an additional alcohol related incident on 28 Oct 2002, which was accompanied by suicidal gestures, the commander requested her medical and mental health records be reviewed for determination of possible severe mental health conditions underlying her destructive behavior. In accordance with the commander’s request, a psychologist, psychiatrist, and the Chief, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment (ADAPT), evaluated her records. Based on their assessment, she did not have a psychiatric condition that required a medical evaluation board or that rendered her incompetent for pay and records. However, she did possess a Borderline Personality Disorder of such severity as to preclude adequate military service. All mental health professionals queried recommended that she be expeditiously administratively discharged. On 5 Dec 2002, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification. In an undated letter, the Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge legally sufficient. On 19 Dec 2002, she was honorably discharged. Her narrative reason for separation was “Conditions Not a Disability.” ______________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. DPSOR states they found no evidence of error or injustice in the processing of the applicant’s discharge. Based on the documentation in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the narrative reason for separation and separation code was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical Consultant acknowledges that the applicant carried a co-morbid diagnosis of Depressive Disorder. However, the mental health professional who evaluated her determined that her primary diagnosis was Borderline Personality Disorder and that she had an S4T profile, secondary to her alcohol abuse and involvement in the ADAPT program. Consequently, a determination was made that it was her Personality Disorder and alcohol abuse, and not her co-morbid diagnosis of Depressive Disorder, which significantly interfered with her ability to perform military service. The applicant's factual history shows a recurrent problem with alcohol abuse and maladaptive personality traits. She was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, which authorizes the involuntary separation of airmen that suffer from Mental Disorders that are not considered a disability; however that are so severe that the member's ability to function effectively in the military environment is significantly impaired. Based on a mental health assessment, it was determined that she did not have a psychiatric condition that required a Medical Evaluation Board. However, she did possess a Borderline Personality Disorder, of such severity as to preclude adequate military service. Personality Disorders and Adjustment Disorders are not considered compensable disabilities under AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, and Separation or DODI 1332.38, Physical Disability Evaluation. Because of the nature of her disorder, her commander felt an honorable separation was appropriate acknowledging that it precludes the applicant from re-entering the service. Addressing the applicant’s implicit desire for a medical separation, the military Disability Evaluation System (DES), established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law, under Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), only offer compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries which specifically rendered a member unfit for continued active service and were the cause for career termination; and then only for the degree of impairment present at the time of separation and not based on future occurrences. Again, her Personality Disorder is not a compensable disability. On the other hand, operating under a different set of laws (Title 38, U.S.C.), with a different purpose, the Department of Veterans Affairs (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 retainability, fitness to serve, or narrative reason for release from military service. With this in mind, Title 38, U.S.C., which governs the DVA compensation system, was written to allow awarding compensation ratings for any conditions with a nexus with military service. This is the reason why an individual can be released from active military service for one reason and yet sometime thereafter receive a compensation rating from the DVA for a medical condition considered service-connected, but which was not militarily unfitting during the period of active service. The Medical Consultant opines the applicant has not met the burden of proof of error or injustice that warrants the desired change of the record. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D. ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Prior to July 2002 she was a model airman, who joined the Air Force with the intention of retiring like her father. Prior to receiving a Letter of Counseling for her participation in an unprofessional relationship, she attempted to obtain a Humanitarian Assignment to escape a situation that had become intolerable. She was sexually harassed by her boss and tried to handle it like an adult. Five months after the sexual harassment became public; she changed from a model airman to a suicidal person with borderline personality disorder. She self-mutilated, drank to excess, had anger issues, had no self- worth, and was depressed. She could not mentally or physically endure anymore and wanted to be separated from the military. She should have been discharged with a service connected disability. She suffers from depression, suicidal ideations, anger issues, and has a personality disorder, which began during her time in the military and has continued after her separation. Her complete response is at Exhibit F. ______________________________________________________________ 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 opinions and recommendations of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and the BMCR Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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- 2012-02567 in Executive Session on 7 Mar 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Jun 2012. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 6 Aug 2012. Exhibit D. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 28 Jan 2013. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 4 Feb 2013. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Feb 2013. Panel Chair