AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
GRADE	AFSNJSSAN

x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x•+ x•+ x•+
x•+ x•+

ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'SRELEASE TO THE BOARD ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMIITED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

llEAJUNC DATE	CASE NUMBER

17 Oct 2013	FD-2013-00648

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

*Narrative Reason and Authority
+RE Code

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 CSTREET WEST,SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB,TX 78150-4742

S£CRETARY OFTRI!AIR FORCE Pl!:RSONNELCOUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISOiARCE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD ft.OOR ANDREWS AFB, MD W7U-7tCll

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00648	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals to change the reason and authority for the discharge and to change the reenlistment code.

The applicant was offered a personal  appearance before the Discharge Review Board  (DRB) but declined and requests that the review be completed based on the available service record.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDING:	The request to change the reason and authority for discharge and to change the reenlistment code is denied.

ISSUE:  Applicant received an Honorable discharge for Personality Disorder

Applicant contends discharge was improper because she was improperly referred to 5 MDOS Life Skills Support Center for a Command Directed Mental Health Evaluation in retaliation for a complaint she filed with the base Inspector General.  She also contends she does not suffer from a personality disorder.  The records indicated the applicant was referred for a mental health evaluation due to her commander's concerns regarding the applicant's paranoia, blatant disregard for authority, emotional outbursts, and reactions to feedback which made supervisors and peers fearful of repercussion.   Through testing, collateral information and clinical interviews, the Life Skills Support Center Clinical Psychologists Captain R, Captain L and Caption F diagnosed with applicant with a personality disorder so severe that her ability to function in the military environment was significantly impaired and recommend administrative separation IAW AFI 36- 3208, paragraph 5.11.9.1. After a complete and thorough review of the records and the evidence submitted by the applicant the Board found the applicant's contention to have no merit.  The applicant was properly notified by her commander of his recommendation for a mental health evaluation IAW DoD Directive
6490.1 and DoD Directive 6490.4. Additionally, she was properly notified of the commander's recommendation for discharge. Furthermore, the applicant did not provide any evidence from a licensed psychologist that stated she was misdiagnosed during her time in the Air Force.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge  Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

In view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief