RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-05111 XXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation (Unsuitability-Personality Disorder-Evaluation Officer) be changed. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He does not have a passive-aggressive personality and has lived with the shame of this type of discharge for many years. His narrative reason for separation, which was passive-aggressive disorder [sic] is unfounded. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; a letter from his doctor indicating that he does not have a passive-aggressive personality disorder rather suffers from bipolar illness, obsessive-compulsive disorder and Asperger’s syndrome. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 4 September 1980, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. In an undated memorandum, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Unfitness, Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program, due to his personality disorder. Specifically, on 5 May 1981, the applicant was evaluated by competent medical personnel and diagnosed as having a passive-aggressive personality disorder, with strong dependent features, chronic, moderate. The examining physician stated the applicant was unable to adjust socially and emotionally to service life and that impairment for further military duty is marked. As a result of his personality disorder, the applicant could not carry a weapon and consequently could not perform his duties as a security policeman. In an undated memorandum, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification. In a memorandum dated 27 May 1981, an evaluation officer concluded the applicant was unsuitable for continued military service and recommended the discharge authority not consider him for rehabilitation, but that he should be honorably discharged from the Air Force. On 28 May 1981, the Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge legally sufficient. On 3 June 1981, the discharge authority directed the applicant be honorably discharged. Probation and rehabilitation was not recommended. On 10 June 1981, the applicant received an honorable discharge, and was credited with 9 months, and 7 days of active service. His narrative reason for discharge is “Unsuitability-Personality Disorder-Evaluation Officer.” The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and the BCMR Medical and Psychiatric Consultants, which are included at Exhibits C thru E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. The applicant has not submitted his application in a timely manner as it has been approximately 33 years since his discharge. In accordance with the regulation at the time, an evaluation officer was appointed to review the case and submit a recommendation to the discharge authority. The evaluation officer recommended the applicant be discharged from the Air Force with an honorable discharge based on his diagnosed personality disorder, which was incompatible with further military service. As a result discharge action was initiated. Therefore, the separation code, narrative reason for separation and character of service are correct as indicated on the applicant's DD Form 214. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. DPSOR found no evidence of an error or injustice in the applicant's discharge processing. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends changing the applicant’s narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority.” The applicant’s current mental health provider opined the applicant does not have a passive-aggressive personality disorder, citing her treatment of the applicant for bipolar illness, obsessive- compulsive disorder and Asperger’s syndrome since 2008. The Medical Consultant has no reason to disagree with the applicant’s current diagnosis and treatment, but finds his current set of diagnoses were undoubtedly based upon the more recent clinical assessments, observations and reported symptoms 30+ years after his separation; which may not have been clinically apparent or diagnosable when he was 19 years of age. Thus, the fact that the nomenclature assigned to the applicant’s more recent pattern(s) of behavior is different from that during military service does not invalidate the clinical assessments conducted during his military service. In addition, there is no evidence that the Military Department caused the applicant’s current mental disorders or permanently aggravated any pre- existing mental disorder. A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit D. The BCMR Psychiatric Consultant recommends changing the applicant’s narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority.” Psychiatry is a very young medical field that is constantly changing and has grown exponentially in the past 30 years. In fact the diagnosis of passive-aggressive personality disorder no longer exists; however, new diagnoses that did not exist in the 1980s are widely known even to the lay people, such as autism or Asperger’s. In 1981, the applicant’s evaluating psychiatrist did not have the knowledge of the trajectory of his condition. The evaluation was performed once and was a “snapshot” in time. One can argue that the diagnosis of personality disorder involves more than one evaluation. Regarding criteria for passive-aggressive personality, the DSM- III states “This behavior pattern is characterized by both passivity and aggressiveness. The aggressiveness may be expressed passively, for example by obstructionism, pouting, procrastination, intentional inefficiency, or stubbornness. This behavior commonly reflects hostility which the individual feels he dare not express openly. Often the behavior is one expression of the patient's resentment at failing to find gratification in a relationship with an individual or institution upon which he is over-dependent.” Based on this description of the disorder there is no evidence in the applicant’s military records to support that he met the criteria for passive-aggressive personality. His duty-related performance was excellent and he did not have any interpersonal conflicts. His opposition was not passive, but very active - he demanded to be discharged or else. While the BCMR Psychiatric Consultant is unable to confirm the diagnosis of passive- aggressive personality disorder, it does not mean that the supporting material does not exist. This information is simply not present in this case file. However, notwithstanding the lack of post-service records, there is sufficient evidence to dismiss the diagnosis of passive-aggressive disorder based on the facts from 1980-1981 time period alone. The applicant’s inability to cope with stressors indicates he had some predisposition to develop mental illness or he had inadequate coping skills. Given all the information provided, the applicant’s symptoms might be more consistent with the diagnoses given to him by his treating psychiatrist, mainly Asperger’s syndrome. Asperger’s syndrome is a form of very high functioning autism. It is a developmental condition that individuals are born with. An essential feature of this disorder is the persistent impairment of social communication and social interaction. These individuals also like routines, rules and consistency. They can have a hard time with transitions and adjustments. During the applicant’s time in service, his behavioral characteristics were consistent with the diagnosis for Asperger’s syndrome. He strictly followed the rules and regulations, he performed well [but only alone], he felt that others just got in the way and could not function as a part of the team. Even more interesting, he openly talked about “wanting out of the military.” in the very naïve way, stating that he could not handle it and he gave it a try, but it was not working for him. His attempts to be taken seriously were very childish and primitive. The applicant did not have a hidden agenda, but openly disclosed what he wanted. This bluntness and openness is common in the individuals with Asperger’s syndrome. A complete copy of the BCMR Psychiatric Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He lost his trust in the military after receiving poor medical care which resulted in a ruptured appendix. He worked hard his entire life and after his discharge graduated magna cum laude with a degree in Economics. He may have been able to remain in the Air Force with Asperger’s syndrome and could have worked as a lone agent with the Office of Special Investigations. The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit G. 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. We note the Air Force OPR recommends denial stating they found no evidence of an error or injustice in the applicant's discharge processing. However, after carefully reviewing this application, we agree with the recommendation of the BCMR Medical and Psychiatric Consultants and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of an error or an injustice. Therefore, we recommend the applicant's records be corrected as set forth below. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 10 June 1981, he was discharged with a narrative reason for separation of “Secretarial Authority” and a separation code of “JFF.” The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-05111 in Executive Session on 12 May 2016, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , III All members voted to correct the records as recommended. Due to the unavailability of XXXXX, XXXXX will sign as Acting Panel Chair. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 December 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 20 February 2015. Exhibit D. Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 24 August 2015. Exhibit E. Memorandum, BCMR Psychiatric Consultant, dated 17 March 2016. Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 March 2016. Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 1 April 2016, w/atch. 1 2