RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04663 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The following changes be made to his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty: 1. His narrative reason for separation (Personality Disorder) and separation code (JFX) be changed. 2. His reentry (RE) code of 2K (Formally notified of involuntary separation),” be changed to a code that would allow reentry in the military. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: There were numerous judicial process failures under AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, regarding his discharge due process rights. While gathering information for possible employment with a local police department, he realized how stigmatic and inappropriate his discharge from the Air Force was. He demonstrated exemplary conduct both on and off duty. While it is true the military frustrated him during that time in his life, he controlled his immaturity and did his job in an excellent manner. His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), dated 24 Oct 02, portrays a healthy, contributing, upwardly mobile, dedicated airmen. One month later, because of a conversation he had about politics, he was recommended for separation. There was no diagnosed mental health disorder; no impairment to effective duty function; no psychiatric presentation on or off duty; no evidence to support adverse effects or poor job performance; and no opportunity to correct the “deficiency”; in fact, there was no deficiency. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, excerpts from AFI 36-3208, his EPR, his mental health examination findings, and a personal data RIP. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 15 Mar 01, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force, and was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class. On 20 Sep 02, the applicant was evaluated by a psychiatrist for possible decertification from the Personnel Reliability Program (PRP). The psychiatrist recommended the applicant be permanently decertified from the PRP and administratively separated from the Air Force due to unsuitability. On 23 Sep 02, the PRP Medical Consultant concurred with his recommendation. On 4 Mar 03, the applicant was notified by his squadron commander that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for a condition that interfered with military service, specifically, a personality disorder. The reason for the proposed action was, the applicant was seen by a clinical psychiatrist and diagnosed with a personality disorder that rendered him unfit for duty. It was determined his psychological dysfunction was of such severity that his ability to function effectively in the military environment was significantly impaired. On 4 Mar 03, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and after consulting with legal counsel, waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf. On 7 Mar 03, the base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support the basis for separation. The discharge authority approved the separation and directed an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 12 Mar 03, the applicant was honorably discharged by reason of personality disorder. He served on active duty for a period of 1 year, 11 months, and 28 days. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his RE code to one that would allow him to reenlist. DPSOA notes the applicant’s DD Form 214 reflects an erroneous RE code and, based on his involuntary separation with an honorable discharge, the appropriate RE code is “2C.” DPSOA states the applicant’s RE code will be administratively corrected to reflect 2C. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of his request to change his narrative reason for separation and separation code. DPSOS states, based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the narrative reason for separation and separation code was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. DPSOS notes the applicant was suspended from PRP duties for expressing ideas and views that seriously conflicted with the spirit and intent of the PRP program. His records do not mention or support any violation of AFI 36-3208. Although the applicant is apparently coping well in his civilian capacity, it does not change the basis for which he was discharged. The military environment is unique and stressors encountered in such an environment may not appear or surface when removed from the military environment. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: After receiving the advisory opinion, he learned there were other mental health records in existence that are only available to his physician. So, on this matter, he will trust the Air Force’s documentation—there was a personality disorder. Regarding his physician’s report, section 5.11 of AFI 36-3208 states “This explanation should detail the effects on member’s performance, conduct (on and off duty), or other reasons that would limit the member’s potential for completing his or her enlistment….” This report should not be used as, or substituted for, the explanation of the adverse effect of the condition on assignment or duty performance.” He was discharged because he ticked people off, not because he was worthless to the Air Force. Under section 5.1.1, the regulation states there should have been some reasonable effort to help him meet Air Force standards. A month after learning of his probable discharge, his supervisor gave him an excellent EPR. Both of his supervisors rated him as “ready” for promotion. These thoughts were written down after all of these events were set in motion. Even with an actual diagnosis of a personality disorder, he feels that the major injustice was that not one time did he ever get into any sort of trouble on or off duty while he was enlisted. The vast majority of cases similar to his deal with pervasive mental health manifestations such as fist fights, tantrums, suicidal ideations, drug or alcohol abuse, etc. He does not make a point of advertising his beliefs or political views. It all started when an airman whom he did not see eye to eye with, decided to exaggerate the context of casual comments he made to other members of his flight. Based on these comments the PRP decertification process began, which is what prompted the Life Skills appointment. After all that is said and done, and based on the mental health appeals the Board has ruled on in the past, he was shocked when he read in the advisory opinion that his discharge classification was warranted. He does not want his DD Form 214 to read that he was discharged for being what society thinks of as crazy. He has read dozens of similar cases where the applicant was successful in getting their narrative reason for separation changed to a more innocuous sounding “Secretarial Authority.” In his case, he has documented great work performance free of any of the negative issues that the majority of these cases share. While he would feel vindicated by his full request being granted, his real concern is over the SPD code and narrative reason for separation. He would like to enter a career in law enforcement and his DD Form 214 is the only issue that he needs to explain in his life. He has completed a Master’s Degree in Business Administration, received a Citizen’s Award from the local police department for his involvement in saving a life, and is also a licensed emergency medical technician (EMT). The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. After carefully reviewing the applicant’s submission, to include his rebuttal, we do not believe relief is warranted in this case. The applicant contends there were numerous judicial process failures at the time of his discharge processing; however, we find no evidence to support his claim. Based on the evidence of record it appears the applicant’s discharge was in compliance with the governing instruction and that he was afford all due process rights. He states he demonstrated exemplary conduct and had no psychiatric presentation both on and off duty, and there was no diagnosis of a mental health disorder, to justify labeling his discharge as a “personality disorder.” The applicant states his case falls in a category of similar cases where relief was awarded by the AFBCMR; however, we note each case before this Board is considered on its own merits, and precedent does not bind us. While we strive for consistency in the manner in which evidence is evaluated and analyzed, we are not bound to recommend relief in one circumstance simply because the situation being reviewed appears similar to another case. Therefore, we find his narrative reason for separation is correct, and find no basis to recommend that it be changed. Regarding the applicant’s RE code, DPSOA does note the applicant’s RE code is in error and will be administratively corrected to 2C. We agree with this correction, and find no basis to upgrade his RE code to one that would allow his reentry. Therefore, aside from the administrative correction noted above, we find no basis to recommend granting further relief in this case. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2010-04663 in Executive Session on 3 Nov 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Dec 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 17 May 11. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 28 Jun 11. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 29 Sep 11. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Oct 11. Panel Chair