RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2020-00651

XXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING REQUESTED: YES

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected as follows:

1.  Item 26, Separation Code, JFX, replaced with DER or JDR.

2.  Item 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, Personality Disorder, replaced with Disability or Early Release.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

In 2013, he suffered an in-service physical assault from three uniformed soldiers and as a result developed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) symptoms.  The in-service assault is documented in his military records.  He was forced to sign a waiver saying the assault was mutual; however, it was not, and he did not have proper advice or representation before signing the document.  Prior to the assault he had no mental health issues, and was awarded the Good Conduct Medal.  All of his problems started after the assault, because it affected his outlook on life.  Furthermore, the personality disorder label has compounded the negative perception he has of himself.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a former Regular Air Force senior airman (E-4).  

On 11 Jul 14, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations, and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airman, for Conditions that Interfere with Military Service-Personality Disorder.  The reason for this action was on 19 Jul 14, a Board Certified Staff Psychiatrist evaluated the applicant with traits of a personality disorder.  The commander recommended the applicant’s discharge be characterized as honorable.

On 16 Jul 14, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and elected to not submit a statement on his behalf.

On 18 Jul 14, the Acting Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge action legally sufficient and recommended the discharge authority accept the applicant’s unconditional waiver and order him separated with an honorable service characterization without probation and rehabilitation.  The discharge authority approved the recommendation on 21 Jul 14.  

On 30 Jul 14, the applicant was honorably discharged, and was credited with 3 years, 2 months and 14 days of active service.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits D and E.

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY

On 3 Sep 14, the Secretary of Defense issued a memorandum providing guidance to military correction boards regarding liberal consideration for Vietnam veterans claiming PTSD (Hagel Memo).  This allowed correction Boards to have a wide latitude and comprehensive review of all materials and evidence provided by the applicant.  In addition, time limits to reconsider decisions would be liberally waived for applications covered by this guidance. 

Subsequent guidance (Carson Memo and Kurta Memo) expanded liberal consideration protections to include all veterans who requested a modification of their discharge, to include character of service, narrative reason for discharge and reenlistment code, due in whole or in part to any mental health condition rather than just PTSD or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), and included those veterans who were victims of sexual assault or sexual harassment.  Liberal consideration would be given to veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on the aforementioned conditions.

Boards are directed to consider the following main questions when assessing requests due to mental health conditions including PTSD, TBI, sexual assault, or sexual harassment:

a. Did the veteran have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge?
b. Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service?
c. Does that condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? 
d. Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge?

Copies of all guidance memoranda can be found at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DP2STM, recommends denying the application.  Based on review of the applicant’s request and review of the master of personnel record, there is no error or injustice with the discharge processing.  The base discharge authority received documentation from the medical authorities indicating that the applicant had a condition that interfered with continued military service and recommended discharge.  The base discharge authority approved and directed discharge. 

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit D.

The BCMR Psychiatric Advisor opines there is no evidence that an error or injustice took place in the decision rendered; however, recommends changing reason for discharge to “Condition not a Disability” in accordance with a new regulations, which prevents release of confidential Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) information.

The applicant claims diagnostic error and asserts that he has been diagnosed with PTSD by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).  Claims of diagnostic errors (particularly mental health conditions) have been on the rise, fueled largely by differences between a non-compensable service diagnosis and service connection for a different (and compensable) diagnosis made by the DVA; sometimes soon, and sometimes much later, after separation.  Diagnostic nomenclature assigned to a given set of psychiatric symptoms and stressors, as reported by a patient at a given point in time during a military evaluation, not uncommonly may change over time; or may be reported differently at a subsequent point in time (e.g., post-service DVA Compensation & Pension evaluation).  The applicant has never reported any traumatic experiences while in service, not to the military providers, and not to the civilian providers during his hospitalization.  Of note, the applicant’s report of the trauma to DVA is also inconsistent and ranges from being attacked by one individual to three military officers.  Furthermore, even between the DVA mental health professionals the diagnoses have varied as the applicant presented differently on each occasion.  Therefore, with disclosure of a different clinical history or set of symptoms, a new mental health provider is more inclined to reach a different diagnostic conclusion, as was likely in the case under review.  Furthermore, a change in diagnosis may legitimately occur following a greater period of observation and treatment; for example, it took military psychiatrist months of weekly visits to arrive to the conclusion that the applicant suffers from Personality Disorder, and he did not finalize his diagnoses until the applicant’s second hospitalization and completion of psychological testing.  In fact, the civilian inpatient mental health providers and military psychiatrist agreed on the diagnosis.  The presentation can be further complicated by the fact that individuals may also experience symptoms that are shared (overlapped) by one or more other clinical diagnoses (e.g., the mistrust of people seen in Paranoid Personality Disorder and PTSD).  The fact that the applicant has been given a different diagnosis by the DVA provider is insufficient to invalidate the accuracy or appropriateness of the conclusions reached by equally competent military mental health authorities and the applicant’s commander who were most familiar with his expressed pattern of behavior at the time of military service. 

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinions to the applicant on 18 Jun 20 for comment (Exhibit F), 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.  While the Board notes the recommendation of AFPC/DP2STM against correcting the record, the Board finds a preponderance of the evidence substantiates the applicant’s contentions in part.  In this respect, while AFPC/DP2STM and the BCMR Psychiatric Advisor opined there is no evidence of an error or injustice, we agree with the BCMR Psychiatric Advisor that the reason for discharge should be changed to prevent release of confidential health information.  Furthermore, in order to prevent a further burden with the stigma associated with the narrative reason of “Personality Disorder,” we find it is in the interest of justice to change her narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority” with the corresponding separation code to “JFF.”  However, for the remainder of the applicant’s request, the evidence presented did not demonstrate an error or injustice, and the Board therefore finds no basis to recommend granting that portion of the applicant’s request.  Therefore, the Board recommends correcting the applicant’s records as indicated below.

4.  The applicant has not shown a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

RECOMMENDATION

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show on 30 Jul 14, he was honorably discharged with a narrative reason for separation of “Secretarial Authority” and a Separation Program Designator of “JFF”.

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-2020-00651 in Executive Session on 19 Aug 20:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 6 Dec 19.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Mental Health Liberal Consideration Guidance, dated 3 Sep 14, 24 Feb 16, and 25 Aug 17.
Exhibit D:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 10 Mar 20.
Exhibit E:	Advisory opinion, BCMR Psychiatric Advisor, dated 19 Mar 20.
Exhibit F:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 18 Jun 20.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings regarding AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2020-00651, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.