AIR  FOEiCE  BOARD FOR  CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RElZORD  OF PROCEEDINGS 

,/I !!  1 E  '/CJcJO 

\*..  Lf L 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  96-00315 

COUNSEL 

XEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REUUESTS THAT: 

1.  He be  reinstated on active duty  in an AGR-Title  32 position 
as a Security Police Officer. 

2.  He be promoted to the grade of staff sergeant with back pay. 

3.  NGB Form 26, ANG  Active Duty Performance Rating, rendered for 
the period 20 September 1992 through 28 February 1993 be declared 
void. 

4.  The  mental  health  evaluations  and  alcohol  counseling 
records/reports be removed from his records. 

5.  His Secret Clearance be reinstatement. 

6.  He be awarded the Community Service Award. 

'7.  Mismanagement  on  two  evaluations  and  disciplinary  action 
against  the 
ANG  Base  Commander for misuse/abuse  of  power, 
retaliation, retribution, and  sending him  to an  improper mental 
health exam. 

8.  Disciplinary  action  against  the  Deputy  Chief  of  Security 
Police 
power, 
falsifying/fabricating records, violating the Priva(2y Act. 

retaliation, 

misuse/abuse 

f o r  

of 

9.  He be authorized to carry his weapon in the full  capacity of 
his duties. 

10. Disciplinary  action  against  the  clinical  psychologist  at 
Hanscom AFB  and Dr. R. for falsifying mental health records. 
11. Disciplinary  action  against  t h e   Support  Group  Commander  f o r  
retaliating against h i m   because  he went  above hex- :lead in filing 
a c o m p l a i n t .  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

Applicant  states  that  faulty  mental  health  exams  were  Command 
influenced; that his separation was improperly conducted; that he 
was  illegally  suspended  from  duty;  that  his  Command  failed  to 
answer  complaints;  that  his  Command  violated  regulations  and 
retaliated  against  him;  that  the  performance  evaluation  was 
rendered through retaliation; that statements provided to Mental 
Health were  recruited, false, slanderous and falsified; and that 
he  was  discriminated  against  in  promotion  procedures. 
The 
applicant  also  contends  that  his  suspension  from  duty  was  in 
violation  of  regulations  and  constituted  retaliation;  that 
massive  noncompliance  to  regulations  occurred;  that  the  his 
security  clearance  removal  and  admittance  into  alcohol  classes 
incorporated through  falsification of  records  and  deceit;  that 
evaluations  conducted  in  retaliation  for  reporting  complaints; 
and  that  the  evaluations  conducted were  in  total disregard  for 
regulations. 

In support of his appeal, applicant has provided a 46 page brief, 
with 46 attachments.  In additional, he  has provided a two page 
statement, with attachments, one being a copy of a cassette tape 
which  involves  a  meeting  with  Col 
and 
himself. 

Lt  C o l -  

The applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Applicant  enlisted  in the Regular Air  Force on 25 November  1987 
and was released from active duty 19 September 1990 in the grade 
of senior airman. 

On 20 September 1990, he enlisted i n  the Air National Guard for a 
period of 6 years, 

On  14 April  1993, the  applicant was  stopped and  arrested by  the 
Manchester,  NH  police  for  a  DWI; however,  due  to  insufficient 
evidence, the  charges were  1-ater dropped and  he  w a s   referred to 
alcohol counseling. 

On 7 J u l y   1993, applicant filed a formal complaint to the 157 ARG 
complaints officer. 

On  1.9  August  1993, t h e   investigating officer  (10) completed his 
investigation and  recommended the applicant ' s  clai-ns of physical 
and  emotional  problem  be  evaluated,  withz8ut cbligation  f o x  
treatment, and his  employment as a  s e c u r i t ; ?   police specialist be 
terminated.  Rased  on  the  i-ecommeedation  f  t h e   investigating 
o f f i c e i - ,   a p p l i c a n t   was  referred  f ~ r  a  :i.sntal  licalth  by  his 
c1 omnia ricc 1-  . 

2 

On  23  August  1993,  applicant  was  evaluated  by  a  Clinical 
AFB.  The psychologist indicated that the 
Psychologist at 
applicant  presented  with  a  high  degree  of  defensiveness  and  a 
great fear of revealing himself.  The psychologist noted that the 
applicant’s profile was consistent with the following personality 
style: an individual who is likely to display some form of acting 
out  behavior  which  may  be  quite  intense  and  violent. 
The 
diagnosis 
narcissistic 
personality traits.  In addition, the applicant was determined to 
have  been  unsuitable  f o r   duties  involving the  use  of  force  or 
bearing of firearms under the provisions of AFR  125-26. 

significant  anti-social 

was 

and 

The  applicant was  again evaluated on 29  September and  6 October 
1993.  The  diagnosis  was  alcohol  dependence  in  remission  and 
anti-social, narcissistic personality traits. 

P 

On 13 October  1993, applicant notified by  his  commander that  he 
was recommending applicant for separation from full-time National 
Guard duty in accordance with ANGR 35-03, under the provisions of 
chapter 6 ,  paragraph  6-5.  The basis  for the commander’s action 
was  that  applicant  had  lost  the  professional  qualification 
required for the performance of  his assigned duties.  (ANGR 35-03 
Under  the  provisions  of  AFR  39-1  (Cl), 
para.  6-5(c)  (3) 
attachment 44, para 2c, applicant was required to carry a firearm 
to be  qualified  for duties  in  the  Security Police career field. 
The  recent  mental  health  evaluation  conducted  by  clinical 
psychologist concluded that applicant was not suitable for dut-ies 
involving  the  use  of  force  or  bearing  of  firearms  under  the 
provisions of AFR 125-26. 

On  18  October  1993,  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the 
notification and indicated that he would submit a rebuttal. 

Based  on  an  anonymous  letter  received  by  the  National  Guard 
Bureau Office of  the Inspector General  (NGB/IG) on 21 June 1994, 
alleging the fraudulent use of a government credit card, reprisal 
and  several  instances  of  mismanagement  with  the  157th Security 
Police Squadron, the NGB/IG completed an inquiry. 

On 21 November 1994, the applicant’s request for voidance af 
Performance  Appraisal  rendered  for  the  period  1  March 
through 11 August  1993  was  approved by  the Adjutant  General 
the report was removed from his  records. 

the 
1993 
and 

the 
1995, the  applicant  requested separztion from 
ANG  and Air  F‘oi-ce Reserve under the provisions of 
Hi:  request  was 
(Resignation 
ANG and  Air 
approved and he was  s e p a r a t e d   from the 
Force  Reserve on 12 March  1995.  H i s   service was  ch3x-actei-ized as 
h o n o r a b l e .  

Convenience) . 

3 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Chief,  Utilization,  Air  National  Guard  Readiness  Center, 
ANG/MPPU,  reviewed  this  application  and  indicates  that  on 
14 April  1993,  applicant  was  stopped  and  arrested  by  the 
police  for  a  DWI.  He  was  referred  to  mental 
health  f o r   evaluation,  and  based  on  his  mental  evaluation, 
applicant  was  no  longer  authorized  to  carry  a  firearm.  Air 
National Guard Regulation 35-03, paragraph 6-5c (3) provides that 
an  individual  may  be  involuntarily  separated  from  full-time 
National  Guard  duty  for  loss  of  professional  qualification 
required for the performance of assigned duties. 

Applicant has demonstrated that individuals with a later date of 
rank than his were promoted before him;, however, no evidence was 
found to establish that  applicant was more  qualified  than these 
Applicant’s  supervisor  gave  him  an  overall 
individuals. 
for  the  period  ending 
performance  rating  of  “Excellent , I’ 
28 February  1993, but  the  reviewing  official  non-concurred  and 
lowered the rating to “Satisfactory.” Applicant‘s evaluation was 
not  signed  by  the  reviewing  official  until  14  June  1993, 
nevertheless,  they  have  no  evidence  that  the  evsluation  would 
have been different had it been on time. 

The Distinguished  Community  Service Award  (DCSA) of the  Federal 
Executive Association  (FEA) does not appear to be affiliated with 
the  Department  of  the  Air  Force  or  any  other  part  of  ’the 
Department  of  Defense,  and  therefore,  the  AFBCMR  has  no 
jurisdiction. 

In  regard  to  applicant’s  request  concerning  his  security 
clearance, ANG/DPPU states that the Defense Investigative Service 
has  coded  applicant’ s security clearance  “z” which means ,  “lost 
jurisdiction  before  determination  was  made.” 
They  can  not 
recommend reinstatement of his security clearance until they know 
if applicant’s clearance was suspended for other reasons to which 
they are not privy.  Although  a  decision was made  by  the  senior 
staff not to establish a Special Security file, this decision was 
never  communicated  to  the  Clearance  Adjudication  Division, and 
therefore  applicant’s  clearance  remained  suspended  pending 
adjudication of  a file that was never created.  This matter needs 
to  be  clarified  to present  unnecessary  detriment  to  applicant’s 
changes of obtaining a new security clearance in the future. 

A  complete  copy of- the  evaluation, with  attachment., is  attached 
at Exhib-it C .  

security clearance status as  “Z” meaning  the Air  Force has  lost 
jurisdiction over the individual. 

Although the 157 ARG/CC formally requested the 497 IG/INS to void 
any prior notification to suspend applicant’s security clearance, 
the 497 IG/INS representatives advised the 157 ARG representative 
that no action  for reinstatement could be  taken without  the  497 
IG/INS  reviewing  the  special  security  file. 
Previous 
conversations  with  157 ARG  representative indicated  a  file was 
established  based  on  a  motor  vehicle  offense  and  statements 
towards co-workers. 

If  applicant  becomes  re-affiliated  with  the  Air  Force  and  a 
commander  or  supervisor  requests  reinstatement  of  his  security 
clearance,  the  497  IG/INS will  adjudicate  the  special  security 
file and make  a  security clearance eligibility determination in 
accordance  with  AFI  31-501 , 
Personnel  Security  Program 
Management. 
Applicant  earliest  eligibility  for  reinstatement 
would be 3 May 1997.  Applicant may request a copy of the special 
security  file  from  the  497  IG/INS under  the  provisions  of  the 
Freedom of Information Act. 

A  complete copy of  the evaluation, with attachments, is attached 
at Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Counsel for the applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and 
indicates  that  the  applicant  has  provided  the  Board  with  a 
lengthy,  rambling  narrative  of  his  concerns.  Frankly, having 
seen  the  advisory  opinions  he  doubts  that  the  application  was 
read  or, if  read, understood.  Neither  the  application nor  the 
advisory  opinions  give  the  Board  much  guidance.  This  response 
is, therefore, an effort to focus the case on the (central issue; 
namely,  “Whether  Applicant  was  misdiagnosed  by  an  Air  Force 
clinical psychologist- thereby causing his separation. 
There is 
no other issue here. 

’ I  

On  20  August  1993,  applicant‘s  commander  requested  a  mental 
health  evaluation  (Exhibit I).  The  Board  will  note  that  this 
request  is  directory  in  nature  with  multiple  complaints 
articulated  about  applicant  leaving  no  doubt  as  to  command’s 
negative  attitude  toward  applicant.  Importantly, however, what 
was not  said was  that  applicant was a threat b e c a i s e   he  carried 
firearms.  T h i s   will  be  a significant omission.  Applicant  saw a 
clinica, psychologist  and on 20 October 1993 was tested utilizing 
t h p   MMPI-2.  T h e   raiG  sc-ores  a r e   at  Exhibit 11.  A t   Z x h i b i r   IT1 is 
cl i r i i c a l   psyclioloqist ’ ;;  interpretation of  the  r e s L : l t s .  
W h a t   is 
, r i t e r p r e t a t i o E   lies  in  block  15 ,  Remarks, 
c u i - i o u s   about 
p z r a g r a p h   I. she def iries  t h e   iefei-i-al as  “Referre(! f o r   a rn.-,:ital 
h e a l t h   t_-vaiuat iori  1 ~ 7  l i i s   c:ommandex-  due  to  varioK.; w m - k - n d  ated 
p r o P  1 6 - r  
ti? 

i n d i v i  C L ~ J -  ‘ s  , 

t h i s  

I 

r i n c  

f 3 1 ) c > - i t  

t  :iiz: 

carry a weapon.”  Nowhere in the referral is there any mention of 
concerns over carrying a weapon.  This is significant because  it 
strongly  suggests  that  there  were  off  record  communications 
between this clinical psychologist and applicant’s commander done 
in an effort  to reshape the  facts.  One  could  call this command 
influence or professional dereliction.  In any event somehow this 
clinical psychologist developed a new agenda, 

Counsel states that  the a new agenda had  to develop because Che 
MMPI-2  results were  benign.  This was  “NO Diagnosis” on AXIS  I, 
and  on  AXIS  I1  there  was  “Diagnosis  Deferred”  meaning  no 
In  other  words  these  is  no  DST-IV  basis  for 
diagnosis. 
concluding that applicant had any psychiatric abnormality of any 
kind.  What happen next is simply a violation of standard of care 
and points up once again the need for physicians to more clearly 
regulate  the  activities of  clinical psychologists.  The  instant 
case  is  reminiscent  of  Blevings,  AFBCMR  95-03103,  where  he 
successfully showed the failure to use DSM-IV standards as being 
fatal to a clinical psychologist’s claim of mental disorder in a 
separation case. 

The  clinical  psychologist  stated  that  she  did  not  recommend 
administrative separation under the provisions of AFR  39-10.  Of 
course  not, there  was  no  personality disorder.  But  then  in  a 
burst of psychobabble she states:  ‘\it is my professional opinion 
that  these personality traits are  severe enough  to preclude  him 
from future duties in the  Security Police career fields.  He is 
not  considered  suitable  for  duties  involving  use  of  force  or 
bearing of firearms under the provisions of AFR  125-26 and is not 
suitable  for  duties  in  the  Personnel  Reliability  Program  (PRP 
under  the  provisions  of  AFR  35-99.”  The  clinical psychologist 
relies upon test results that by no means led to that conclusion, 
but she did end up with the result the command wanted. 

Immediately  after  this  disgraceful  performance  by  the  clinical 
psychologist,  applicant  quite  prudently  sought  professional 
advice  in  the  civilian  sector  within  days  of  the  military 
evaluation.  On 4 November 1993, The civilian physician provided 
a  report  of  evaluation  of  applicant. 
Applicant  was  again 
administered an MMPI-2.  The raw data is at  Exhibit  IVA and  the 
results are at Exhibit IV.  The civilian physician’s diagnosis is 
not merely differentidl, it is diametrically opposecd to Air Force 
Of  almost  equal  importance  is  the 
clinical  psychologist’s. 
common  sense  associated  with  this  case. 
Applicant  provided 
security to the President of the United  States.  HF7  was  screened 
in every possible sense and found to have no menta- OL-  emotional 
condiciori w k i  ch would preclude him f 1-om  s u c h   s p r i s i  t -l.~e w o r k .   H i s  
l a n k   sf  vio1enc.c. is  attested  to  time  and  t  i-ne   si:;  in  = ~ ~ r c i - y  
bel?  15 11 
face-, of  his  Lift  by  those around him  ( E x h i h i t   V ‘  . 
i i i s   bogus  mental  evaluation  F O I - I ~ Z ~  
doubc  t h a t  
applicanc’s s e p a r a t i c r i   (Exhibit VI! . 
imandei  who 
1  p ~ - ~ f e s s i o r i a l  1 - e ~  

+  he  basis  €GI- 
When  a  p s y c r l c i o g i s t s   acts 
3a  ar;d 
has 
t h a t  
1  t  1 e S   C ? T l  
:Ilk> 

-1 

i 

G 

altar  of  rank, they  have  all  taken  a  collective step  backward. 
This Board can correct this wrong. 

Counsel  provided  an  additional  response  and  states  that  they 
strongly disagree with the notion that applicant‘s mental health 
In  truth  there  is  no 
evaluation  was  proper  and  correct. 
psychiatric  diagnosis  from  the  clinical  psychologist  which 
supports her conclusions.  This is simply horrendous health care 
delivery that the Boxer amendment is aimed at.  They cannot al>ow 
clinical  psychologists  to  use  their  position  of  trust  to 
accommodate command.  It is wrong and must be stopped. 

Counsel’s complete responses, with  attachments, are  attached  at 
Exhibits F and G ,  

P 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The Chief, Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, reviewed t h i s   application 
and states that based on the Board‘s request for further review, 
professional  mental  health  provider  input  was  sought  regarding 
applicant’s allegations of  impropriety in the administration and 
evaluation  of  his  case.  A  thorough  review  by  the  Chief  of 
Neuropsychiatric  Services  at  Malcolm  Grow  Medical  Center  found 
the medical consultation and recommendations appropriate for the 
findings  and  results of  testing performed  in  1993 prior  to -the 
applicant  being  removed  from  his  Security  Police position  with 
the  New  Hampshire  Air  National  Guard. 
Therefore,  the  BCMR 
Medical  Consultant  is  of  the  opinion  that  no  change  in  the 
records is warranted and the application should be [denied. 

A complete copy of  the Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is 
attached at Exhibit H. 

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF A I R   FORCE  EVALUATION: 
The  applicant’s counsel  reviewed  the  Air  Force  evaluation  and 
states that this case once again demonstrates that  some clinical 
psychologists  within  the  military  bow  to  command  influence I 
rather than to principles dictated by their profesyional status. 
Counsel  notes  the  applicant has  been  accepted  i n k  Federal  Law 
Enforcement with the right to carry a gun.  In additiori, to being 
accepted, he was investigated as E O   his mental heal+P- status.  In 
view  of  this,  counsel  believes  this  dems:--It i a t e s  
-31-e 
conclusively that applicant was wronged. 

Counsel’s complete  :-esponse, with  zttachmer:cs,  -.- 
E x h i b i t   LJ. 

‘41 :a;lhed  at 

7 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 

2.  The application was timely filed. 

3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice.  We 
agree with the applicant’s counsel in that the only issue before 
this Board is whether or not the applicant was misdiagnosed by an 
Air Force clinical psychologist; thereby, causing his separation. 
After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of  record and noting the 
applicant’s contentions, we are not persuaded that the applicant 
was misdiagnosed. Counsel contends the applicant was referred f o r  
a mental  health evaluation and  removed  from his 
retaliation  for his  filing complaints against 
personnel. 
However,  we  find  no  evidence 
contention.  The NGB/IG  thoroughly  investigated this allegation 
and determined that the separation action was not  reprisal.  The 
evidence of record indicates that the applicant was referred for 
a mental health evaluation by the commander, based on his pattern 
of  behavior  and  the  recommendatio 
ficer  who  was 
investigating his complaints against 
ANG  personnel. 
Prior to the  applicant’s separation, 
three  separate 
mental  health  evaluations. 
These  evaluations  have  been 
independently reviewed by an active duty specialist in this fi’eld 
(Chief, Neuropsychiatric  Services, Malcolm  G r o w   Medical  Center) 
and found to be  appropriate for the  findings and  results of  the 
testing  performed  prior  to  the  applicant’s  removal  from  his 
Security Police position.  The applicant would have been provided 
the opportunity to challenge the medical findings and the reasons 
cited  for the  proposed  discharge action  against  him  had  he  not 
elected  to voluntarily  separate.  Therefore,  in  the  absence  of 
evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  basis  Gpon  which  to 
recommend favorable consideration of these requests. 

I). 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

‘The applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  pres2nted  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  materi2l  error  or 
injustice;  that  the  application  was  denied  witho-it a  personal 
appearance;  and  that  the  application will  only  be  reconsidered 
upon  the  submissior, of  newly  discovered  relevant  evidence  not 
considered with this application. 

8 

The  following members  of t h e   Board  considered t h i s   application in 
Executive  Seasion on  7 0ctobe;r  1997 and  10 June  1998, under  the 
pmvisions  of  AFI 36-2603: 

Ms.  Martha  MaWt,  P a n e l   Chairmall 
M r .   Michael P. Hfgghs,  Member 
M r .   G r e g m y  H .   petkoff, M e m b e r  
Mr.  Phillip E. Hortan,  Examiner  (without vote) 

The following documentary evidence  was  considered: 

C 

Exhibit  A. 
Exhibit B. 
-bit 
C. 
sxhfbit D. 
Exhibit E. 
Exhibit F. 
Ehhibit  a .  
Ekhibit H ,  
Exhibit  I. 
Exhibit J. 

DD Form  149, dated 30 Apr  96, wiatcha. 
Applicantad Master Personnel Records. 
mtter,  ANG/MPPU,  dated 21 Nov 9 6 ,  w/atch, 
L e t t e r ,   AFISFI:, dated 29 Jan 97, w/atch8. 
Letter:, A F B W ,   dated  24  Feb 97- 
L a t t e r ,   Counsel, dated  2 5   A p r   97, w/atchs. 
Letter, Counsel, d a t e d   15 Juri  97. 
L e t t e r ,   BCMR  Medical Consultant, dated  22 D e c   9 7 ,  
w/atchs. 
Letter:, AFBCMR, dated  15 Jan  98. 
L e t t e r ,   Counsel, dated 21 M a r   9 8 ,   w/atchs, 

Panel  Chairman 

9 

.