RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2020-00104

XXXX X. XXXX	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING REQUESTED: NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, dated 15 Oct 13, be corrected to reflect a medical discharge.  

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has given him a service-connected disability rating; therefore, his DD Form 214 discharge does not accurately reflect his service-connected disability.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is an honorably discharged Air Force airman first class.  

In Dec 12, the applicant was admitted to an inpatient psychiatric unit following a Military Treatment Facility (MTF) mental health office recommendation.

On 18 Jun 13, the applicant’s squadron commander ordered a commander-directed mental health evaluation (CDE).

On 25 Jun 13, the medical squadron’s psychologist reported the applicant was diagnosed with a mental disorder, specifically Traits of Schizoid Personality Disorder and determined the disorder was of sufficient severity to significantly impair his ability to effectively function in a military environment.  She further found the applicant was deemed fit for continued duty in his unit; however, deemed unsuitable for continued military service.  

On 14 Aug 13, the applicant’s squadron commander initiated the applicant’s involuntary discharge action.  

On 16 Aug 13, according to the DD Form 2697, Report of Medical Assessment, the health care provider commented, “Depression – has undergone treatment and is currently in remission.  Continue mental health care and medication of indicated.”

On 18 Aug 13, the applicant responded to the notification of discharge disagreeing with both his commander and psychologist assessments and requested he remain in the Air Force.

On 13 Sep 13, the applicant’s squadron commander recommended to the wing commander the applicant be discharged from the Air Force.   

On 3 Oct 13, the applicant’s wing commander approved his administrative discharge with an honorable service characterization for conditions that interfered with military service.  

On 15 Oct 13, the applicant was honorably discharged with a narrative reason for separation of “personality disorder” and credited with two years, one month, and three days of active service.   

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY

On 3 Sep 14, the Secretary of Defense issued a memorandum providing guidance to the Military Department Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records as they carefully consider each petition regarding discharge upgrade requests by veterans claiming PTSD.  In addition, time limits to reconsider decisions will be liberally waived for applications covered by this guidance.

On 25 Aug 17, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD P&R) issued clarifying guidance to Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records considering requests by veterans for modification of their discharges due in whole or in part to mental health conditions [PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual assault, or sexual harassment].  Liberal consideration will be given to veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on the aforementioned conditions.

Currently, service members diagnosed with mental health conditions receive heightened screening to ensure the causal relationship of possible symptoms and discharge basis is fully considered, and characterization of service is appropriate. Veterans discharged under prior procedures, or before verifiable diagnosis, may not have suffered an error because the separation authority was unaware of their condition or experience at the time of discharge.  However, when compared to similarly situated individuals under current standards, they may be the victim of injustice because commanders fully informed of such conditions and causal relationships today may opt for a less prejudicial discharge to ensure the veteran retains certain benefits, such as medical care.

Liberal consideration does not mandate an upgrade.  Relief may be appropriate, however, for minor misconduct commonly associated with the aforementioned mental health conditions and some significant misconduct sufficiently justified or outweighed by the facts and circumstances.  

On 25 Jul 18, the USD P&R issued further guidance with the intent to set clear standards.  

Copies of the Board guidance memoranda are at Exhibit E and were provided to the applicant on 13 May 20.

AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement and Separation, 2 Feb 06, paragraph 5.9.5.5 states, “Discharge Under Other Than 10 U.S.C., chapter 61. Member is physically unfit, but is not entitled to disability benefits provided under 10 U.S.C., chapter 61.  Discharge members under this provision whose unfitting conditions existed prior to service, or who incurred unfitting conditions while in excess leave status, or while on TDRL (and the condition for which originally placed on the TDRL is no longer unfitting).”  Paragraph 8.13 states, “Waiver of PEB Action in EPTS Cases.  A member whose physical qualification for military duty is questionable because of an EPTS condition, and whose case is being considered for PEB action under this chapter, may waive evaluation by a PEB subject to conditions outlined below. If the case does not meet all the criteria for waiver or if the member requests evaluation by a PEB, the appropriate headquarters or medical facility will refer the case to the PEB.  Also refer a case to the PEB when the member fails or refuses to sign a waiver.  Cases must meet the following conditions: 

8.13.1. Member's qualification to perform duties of his or her office, grade, or rank is questionable, as determined by medical board action. 

	8.13.2. The disqualifying defect or condition existed before entry on current period of duty and such duty has not aggravated the defect or condition.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The AFBCMR Psychological advisor recommends considering liberal consideration in the applicant’s case and finds sufficient evidence to support the applicant’s request for a medical discharge with a 70% disability rating for Major Depressive Disorder.  However, should the Board elect to deny his request, it is recommended that his narrative reason for discharge be changed to “Secretarial Authority” for confidentiality due to a noted personality disorder on his DD Form 214.  

A review of his records found that he received mental health services and was placed on a duty limiting conditions (DLC) profile, was deemed not worldwide qualified and placed on the high interest list for his mental health condition, Major Depressive Disorder.  Even though he stopped attending treatment because it appeared his symptoms were stable, his depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation recurred that led to his CDE and eventual discharge.  Even though the applicant denied having any mental health conditions to include having suicidal ideation in his response to his discharge notification, there were consistent reports on separate occasions that he did report having suicidal thoughts.  

Regardless of his actual intent for self-harm, it is alarming that the applicant continued to express having suicidal thoughts and should have been placed on a DLC profile.  He was diagnosed with Schizoid Personality Disorder and was reported to have not met criteria for Major Depressive Disorder or any other mood disorders at the time.  His personality disorder diagnosis is not disputed by the psychological advisor nor by the VA and in fact, the VA acknowledges he has personality traits; however, having continuous suicidal ideation is not a prominent feature or trait of Schizoid Personality Disorder.   The evaluator opined his mental health condition was unsuitable and not unfitting for continued service.  The applicant went to the VA five months post discharge and was given a diagnosis of Unspecified Depressive Disorder.  His diagnosis was later upgraded to Major Depressive Disorder that he continues to carry in present day along with personality traits.

The applicant most likely had co-occurring mental health conditions of a mood disorder and personality disorder that the VA had identified.  The fact that the applicant presented to the VA five months post discharge and received a mood disorder diagnosis that was consistent to his diagnosis given while on active duty service provided insight into his actual clinical presentation.
Furthermore, the VA had the opportunity to observe and assess him over a longer period versus a one-time CDE evaluation and the VA’s assessment was consistent with his mental health treatment while in service.  It appeared that his mood disorder symptoms were more prominent and had greater impact on his overall functioning than his personality traits influencing his behaviors according to the VA in which this psychological advisor concurs.  

The psychological advisor also acknowledges that his mental health condition probably existed prior to service and was not caused or aggravated beyond the natural progression of the disease by military service, but there is sufficient evidence that he most likely had an unfitting mental health condition.  If referred to the MEB, he most likely would have been found unfit for continued service and entered the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES).  During the IDES process, the VA is the rating authority and most likely would have received a disability rating.  Given the proximity of his VA treatment and disability rating assignment to the time of his discharge from service, this psychological advisor accepts the 70% disability rating assigned to him on 26 Jun 14 for Major Depressive Disorder if he was hypothetically referred to the MEB.

Furthermore, the Board should consider applying liberal consideration to the applicant’s request to upgrade his separation to a medical discharge.   

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 12 Mar 20 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is the victim of an error or injustice, in part.  The Board notes the AFBCMR Psychological Advisor recommends granting a disability retirement and medical discharge and agrees the applicant more likely than not had co-occurring mental health conditions of a mood disorder and personality disorder in service that were subsequently identified by the VA.  However, we also note the AFBCMR Psychological Advisor notes that the applicant’s mood disorder more likely than not existed prior to service and was not caused or aggravated beyond the natural progression of the disease by military service.  After reviewing the applicable authority associated with administrative discharges, the Board finds the applicant did not warrant entry into the Disability Evaluation System since his mental health condition more likely than not existed prior to service and was not further aggravated by his service.  In this respect, the Board agrees with the AFBCMR Psychological Advisor that even though the applicant’s DD Form 214 was correct at the time it was published, a change is warranted to ensure confidentiality.  Therefore, the Board recommends correcting the applicant’s records but limiting it to the correction indicated below.

RECOMMENDATION

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show the DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued in conjunction with his 15 October 2013 discharge, be amended to read “JFF” in Block 26, Separation Code, and “Secretarial Authority” in Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation.

However, regarding the remainder of the applicant’s request, the Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2020-00104 in Executive Session on 17 Jun 20:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 05 Nov 19.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFBCMR Psychological Advisor, dated 21 Feb 20.
Exhibit D:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 12 Mar 20.
Exhibit E: Notification of Clarifying Guidance, w/atchs, dated 13 May 20.  

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings related to Docket Number BC-2020-00104, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.