RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00380 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation of “Conditions that interfere with military service-not disability-character and behavior disorder” be changed to a medical discharge. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should have been medically discharged because of his mental disorder. He is trying to obtain Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) disability benefits. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his military service records. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 16 Dec 70, the applicant entered active duty in the Regular Air Force and was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant. On 8 May 85, he was diagnosed by a clinical psychologist as having a “Paranoid Personality Disorder.” The medical summary shows the applicant had presented on several occasions to the emergency room, primary care, and the mental health clinic in Nov 71, Mar 72, Jul 74, Jun 80, Aug 83, and Feb 85 for “nervousness, depression, insomnia, job dissatisfaction, test anxiety, tension, and flying off the handle.” The report shows a previous diagnosis of “Occupational Maladjustment and Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder” in 1975 and that in Nov 77 he was referred for electroencephalogram (EEG) because of a history of “Explosive Personality,” manifested by “fierce temper outbursts, violence, and destructiveness.” Additional extracted statements from the psychological assessment reads: “In summary, there is strong evidence of a personality disorder, particularly of a paranoid type. Given the lengthy history of job problems, problems handling stress, and temper outbursts, it is likely [the applicant’s] behavior and attitude will continue pretty much as it has, especially given his lack of insight and denial of responsibility for his troubles. Since the Air Force does not consider a personality disorder a psychiatric problem, any further action should be administrative and based on [the applicant’s] duty performance.” On 23 May 85, the applicant was notified by his squadron commander that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for conduct and adjustment disorders and failure to perform duties properly. The specific reasons for the proposed action were the results of an 8 May 85, psychological evaluation and the diagnosis of Paranoid Personality Disorder, and his failure to perform his duties in a manner commensurate with rank, time in service, and age. Also, that his bearing and behavior when coupled with emotional outbursts had repeatedly resulted in actions and comments inappropriate for a noncommissioned officer. When counseled for substandard areas of performance, he became uncontrollably excited and used threatening facial, hand, and body gestures and verbal comments. The commander recommended the applicant receive a general discharge. On 10 Jun 85, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification and that he had consulted with military counsel. The applicant offered a conditional waiver of his rights associated with an administrative discharge board hearing, contingent upon his receipt of no less than an honorable discharge. On 12 Jun 85, his commander accepted the conditional waiver and changed his recommendation to an honorable discharge. On 14 Jun 85, the case file was reviewed by the deputy staff judge advocate and found legally sufficient. The discharge authority approved the separation and directed an honorable discharge. On 18 Jun 85, the applicant was honorably discharge by reason of “conditions that interfere with military service – not disability – character and behavior disorder.” He served on active duty for 14 years, 6 months, and 3 days. _________________________________________________________________ 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 reviewing the available evidence of record, we do not find the applicant has suffered from an error or injustice. The preponderance of evidence shows the applicant received evaluations, and care, through the mental health clinics, and may have been hospitalized at least once. In each instance the applicant’s primary diagnosis fit into a category of “mental disorders” not considered a disability under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, (Conditions that interfere with military service-not disability-character and behavior disorder) rendering the applicant unsuitable for military service. Among the listed conditions are Personality Disorders, Disruptive Behavior Disorders, Adjustment Disorders, and Impulse Control Disorders. Therefore, we do not believe the applicant has sustained his burden of proof that an error or injustice occurred and we see no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. _________________________________________________________________ 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-2011-00380 in Executive Session on 15 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 19 Jan 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Panel Chair