RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01581 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation of “personality disorder” and the corresponding separation code of “JFX” be removed from her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) following deployment from Oct 01 to Mar 02; however, her condition was not treated as such so when offered early separation, she accepted. She is now working as a government contractor for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) with the intent of becoming a federal employee. Having “personality disorder” on her DD Form 214 may hinder her ability to advance her career and obtain a security clearance. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 9 Aug 00, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 15 May 02, her supervisor and a witness documented and submitted a Memorandum for Record (MFR) for unprofessional behavior because she used vulgar language while attending a dental appointment. On 22 May 02, she received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for publicly swearing and insubordination, in violation of Articles 91 and 117 under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Additionally, one of her co-workers documented and submitted an MFR stating the applicant developed laminated index cards with profane statements so she could show the person the card instead of verbally stating the words. On 4 Dec 02, the Commander, Behavioral Science Flight and the Chief, Life Skills Element diagnosed her with Axis I: 309.0 Adjustment disorder with depressed mood per Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder 4th Edition (DSM IV). In their professional opinions, the member had an adjustment disorder so severe that her ability to functional within the military environment was seriously impaired. On 16 Dec 02, her commander submitted a request to have her discharged as expeditiously as possible due to the negative impact she was having on the unit. On 20 Dec 02, she was notified by her squadron commander that he was recommending she be discharged for conditions that interfere with military service, specifically, mental disorders, pursuant to AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, chapter 5, section B, paragraph 5.11.9.3. She acknowledged receipt the same day submitting a written statement waiving her right to consult an attorney and submit matters on her own behalf. On 27 Dec 02, the acting Staff Judge Advocate (SJA), reviewed the discharge file and found it legally sufficient. On 3 Jan 03, her wing commander approved the discharge action, pursuant to AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, chapter 5, section B, paragraph 5.11.9.3, at the convenience of the government for conditions that interfere with military service, specifically mental disorders. On 6 Jan 03, the applicant received an honorable discharge with a narrative reason for separation as “personality disorder” and a separation code of “JFX – Service initiated discharge directed by established directive when a personality disorder exists, not amounting to a disability which significantly impairs the member’s ability to function effectively in the military environment.” She was credited with 2 years, 4 months and 28 days of active service. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant’s Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) Code of 2C — “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” is correct and will not be affected if the applicant’s request to change her narrative reason for separation and separation code is approved. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating the applicant did not provide any evidence of an injustice in the processing of her discharge. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. The only error found was with the Separation Program Designator (SPD) code which is only administrative. The applicant’s commander and discharge authority directed separation for Adjustment Disorder. Since the applicant was discharged for Adjustment Disorder, the correct SPD code should reflect “JFY” on the applicant’s DD Form 214. In addition, the narrative reason for separation should also reflect “Adjustment Disorder” on the DD Form 214. Recommend items 26 and 28 on the DD Form 214 be corrected accordingly. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 1 Aug 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant recommends the Board approve changing the applicant’s narrative reason to “Adjustment Disorder” with a separation code to accurately reflect the same, indicating the she has met the burden of proof that her narrative reason for discharge and separation code represents errors in her record. The applicant was discharged for an adjustment disorder, the symptoms of which were clearly disruptive to her duty performance at that time. In accordance with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, 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. 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 an onset in adolescence or early adulthood. The Consultant opines that the clinical psychologist’s use of personality traits in the section containing the applicant’s diagnoses is not material to the mental health provider’s recommendation for discharge. The applicant did not provide medical records contemporaneous with her discharge or treatment in the mental health clinic to explain why she believes her discharge was related to the sequelae of PTSD rather than an adjustment disorder. Thus, it is unclear whether PTSD symptoms may or may not have played a role in the disposition of her case. The complete AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit F. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 18 Jun 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit G). 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting corrective action. We note that AFPC/DPSOR states that the applicant’s commander and discharge authority directed separation for adjustment disorder. However, the DD form 214 says she was discharged for a “personality disorder,” indicating an error in the narrative reason. In our deliberations of this case, we concluded the applicant was a productive airman prior to deployment and upon returning from deployment began exhibiting the symptoms that ultimately led to her discharge. While the AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant recommends changing the narrative reason to “adjustment disorder,” the Board believes that the words “adjustment disorder” have negative connotations similar to “personality disorder.” The applicant did not request this change, and the Board believes it could cause further injustice. As this Board has a duty to ensure no further injustice is created based upon its recommendation, we believe that correction of her narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority” and corresponding SPD code to “JFF” is warranted based on the merits of this case. Accordingly, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected to the extent indicated below. 4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that at the time of her 6 January 2003 discharge, her narrative reason for separation was “Secretarial Authority” and her Separation Program Designator code was “JFF.” The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-01581 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Apr 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 2 Jun 14. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 3 Jul 14. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Aug 14. Exhibit F. Memorandum, AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant, 11 Jun 15. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jun 15.