* ’  

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-02553 

JMnl 1 3  t998 

COUNSEL: None 

HEARING DESIRED: No 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 
The narrative reason on his DD Form 214,  Certificate of Release 
or Discharge from Active Duty, be chanqed to Convenience of  the 
Government  with  a  corresponding  separation  program  designator 
(SPD) . 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
His discharge was not  conducted according to how the authors of 
AFI  36-3208  had designed  it to be  done and he does not believe 
the evidence provided was grounds for discharge.  Neither of the 
two authors of either document used as evidence to discharge him 
were  psychiatrists  or  clinical psychologists but  were  clinical 
social  workers. 
His  commander  stated  in  his  notification 
memorandum  that  “the  examining  psychiatrist  found  that  your 
ability to function in the military environment is significantly 
impaired.”  A psychiatrist did not write this evaluation and he 
does not think the evidence his commander provided is conclusive 
enough according to the AFI 36-3208.  His commander even stated 
to  him  personally  a  couple  of  days  after  the  paperwork  was 
approved that he did not think he  (applicant) had a personality 
disorder but that he wanted him to get an honorable discharge and 
“that  there  is  only  so  many  ways  to  get  out  honorably”  and 
something needed to be written on the discharge paperwork.  His 
commander and  his  counsel gave  him  the _impression he  would  be 
receiving an honorable discharge and  a code may  be  on the  form 
but  that is all it would state.  When he was presented with the 
DD Form 214 and told to sign it, he  tried to stop the procedure 
but  was  told  it  was  too  late  that  he  had  already  waived  his 
rights to submit any  statements.  He  was  told by  the  sergeant 
that handed him the form he had no choice and he had to sign it. 
She was higher ranking so, of course, he signed it. 
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A .  

- 

97-02553 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 22 March 1995 in 
the grade of airman first class for a period of  4  years at the 
age of 27. 
On 11 April  1995,  the applicant was evaluated at the Behavioral 
Analysis Service, Division of Mental Health, Wilford Hall Medical 
Center, Lackland  AFB,  TX.  Applicant  was  found  to  be  free of 
significant  mental  disturbance  and  free  from  significant 
suicidal/homicidal  tendencies,  could  distinguish  right  from 
wrong,  be  considered  responsible  for  his  own  actions,  and 
participate in his own defense.  Applicant was returned to duty. 
It was  stated that applicant was having  an anxious reaction to 
basic military training  (BMT) which is explained in part by his 
age and his expectation that BMT shouldn't  be challenging to him 
because of his maturity and experience.  In addition, it is his 
habit  to  worry  excessively. 
They  did  not  think  there  was 
evidence of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.  Applicant 
appeared to be  lacking self-confidence and worried excessively. 
It was recommended he  attend the Airman's  Group for support and 
coping skills. 
On  16  July  1996,  a  progress  report of  mental  health  treatment 
states that the applicant attended the Airman's  Group nine times 
and  had  three  sessions  in  anger  management  since  he  began 
treatment  on  25 March  1996.  During  that  time,  the  applicant 
displayed limited insight into his own situation.  He frequently 
viewed himself as outside the realm of his peers, offering advice 
to  them  while  displaying  limited  empathy  or  understanding  of 
their  perspective. 
He  provided  a  history  of  interpersonal 
conflicts which  did  not  appear to be  due  to  intoxicant use or 
other  mental  disorder. 
His  DSM  IV  diagnosis  was:  Axis  I: 
Occupational  Problem. 
Axis  11:  Personality  Disorder  Not 
Otherwise Specified.  Axis 111: No diagnosis.  Based on the trial 
of therapy and current assessment, they believed applicant should 
be  considered  for administrative separation from the Air  Force. 
This action would be  in the best  interest of  the Air  Force and 
the applicant  since he may  not  be  able to consistently perform 
services which are effective and useful.  If retained in the Air 
Force, the  applicant  may  experience continued problems of  duty 
performance. 
On 2 August  1996,  the applicant was notified of his commander's 
intent to  initiate discharge action against him  because, on or 
about, 16 July 1996, he was diagnosed with a personality disorder 
not otherwise specified and occupational problem.  The examining 
psychiatrist  found that  his  ability to  function effectively  in 
the military environment was significantly impaired.  On 6 August 
1996, applicant indicated he had consulted counsel and waived his 
right to submit statements. 

2 

b 

97- 02553 

The applicant was honorably discharged on 25  September 1996,  in 
the grade of airman first class, under the provisions of AFI  36- 
3208,  with  a  narrative  reason  "Personality Disorder" and  a  SPD 
"JFX."  He was  issued a RE code of  2C  (Involuntarily separated 
with  an  honorable discharge; or entry  level  separation without 
characterization of service).  He had completed 1 year, 6  months, 
and 4 days of active service. 
On  1 9   May  1997,  the  Veterans  Affairs  evaluated  applicant's 
disability of generalized anxiety disorder at 10 percent. 

- 

AIR FO RCE EVALUATION: 
The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and states 
that  records  show  the  applicant  had  ongoing  problems  in  the 
workplace getting  along with  his  coworkers and  was  referred by 
his  commander  for  a  mental  health  evaluation  (MHE). 
This 
resulted  in a  diagnosis of  Personality Disorder, Not  Otherwise 
Specified, in  July  1 9 9 6   as noted  in  a  letter to  his  commander 
signed  by  a  mental  health  provider  and  countersigned  by  the 
psychiatrist who  was  chief  of  the  service.  He  was  entered  in 
counseling which occurred from March 1996  on, but his failure to 
respond  positively  to  this  prompted  his  subsequent  discharge. 
Since  his  discharge,  the  applicant  has  been  seen  by  several 
mental  health  providers  in  the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs 
(DVA)  system,  with  some  "reluctance"  to  call  his  problem  a 
personality  disorder, but  with  recognition that  he  does  suffer 
from a  '\neurosis and a general anxiety disorder."  His continued 
difficulty  in  interpersonal  relationships  is  pointed  out  in  a 
note dated 23  July 1997  which emphasizes his "extremely extremely 
abusive"  interaction with a clerk he  was dealing with in regard 
to  a  DVA  appointment. 
One  examiner,  on  21  February  1997, 
concluded: "there are aspects of how this man presents himself, 
suggesting that  he  might  be  developing  a personality disorder. 
There  is a  definite quality of  narcissism and  of  interpersonal 
sensitivity without  an  attempt  to understand  the  viewpoints  of 
others."  The applicant was seen at Wilford Hall Medical Center 
early  in  the  course  of  his  training  in April  1 9 9 5 ,   the  month 
after  he  started  basic  training,  and  was  felt  to  have  an 
adjustment disorder with  anxious mood.  Some  consideration was 
given to his having Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, but 
psychometric testing did not bear out this diagnosis, and  later 
examiners  were  not  able  to  affirm  this  either.  Yet  another 
reference to an adjustment disorder with anxious mood, resolved, 
is found in a note referencing an evaluation in August 1 9 9 5 .   The 

3 

97- 02553 

- 

records  document  a  personality  disorder  which  are  lifelong 
patterns  of  maladjustment  in  the  individual's  personality 
structure which are not medically disqualifying or unfitting but 
may render the individual unsuitable for further military service 
and may  be  cause  for administrative action by  the  individual's 
unit commander.  Reasons for discharge and discharge proceedings 
are well  documented in the  records.  Action  and disposition in 
this  case  are  proper  and  reflect  compliance  with  Air  Force 
directives which implement the law.  The 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  is  attached  at 
Exhibit C. 
The  Military  Personnel  Mgmt  Spec,  AFPC/DPPRS,  reviewed  this 
application and states this case has been reviewed for separation 
processing and there are no errors or irregularities causing an 
injustice to the applicant.  The discharge complies with, and was 
conducted according to AFI 36-3208, the appropriate directive in 
effect  at  the time of his discharge.  The records indicate the 
applicant's  military service was reviewed and appropriate action 
was taken.  The applicant did not identify any specific errors in 
the discharge processing nor provide facts which warrant a change 
in his reason for separation or the separation code he received. 
Accordingly, they recommend applicant's request be denied. 

A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and submits a three- 
page  statement  through  his  Congressional  representative. 
In 
summary  he  states  that  he  would  like  to  become  a  productive 
member of  society again.  The Veterans Administration  (VA) were 
actually  the  people  who  convinced  him  to  try  to  have  the 
paperwork  corrected.  Employers are concerned when they see the 
words  "personality disorder''  on the bottom of  the DD Form  214. 
He is completing his accounting and finance degree and would like 
to become productive once again.  If there is anything he can do 
to  have  the  words  "personality  disorder"  removed  from  the 
document  he must  submit to potential  employers, please  let  him 
know.  He finishes his bachelor's degree in finance next term and 
needs  to  start  looking  for a productive  role  in  society.  The 
best  proof  he  believes he  has  that  he  is a  responsible, well- 
natured person, and positive member of society are his grades and 
prior military experience. 

Applicant's complete response, with  attachment, is attached  at 
Exhibit F. 

4 

97-02553 

- 

Under  separate cover, applicant  submitted his  college official 
transcripts which are attached at Exhibit F. 

In response to applicant's request to the BCMR for a copy of the 
note  dated  23 July  1997  referred  to  by  the  BCMR  Medical 
Consultant, the applicant submits a statement stating the note is 
not  at  all  official  and  should  have  never  been  sent  by  the 
clinic. 
It  should  have  been  put  in  the  administrative  file 
instead of  the medical  file.  He had  scheduled the appointment 
about  3  or 4 times and  each time it  was messed up.  When they 
stated his case was closed and that he could not see a doctor at 
the VA he told them he would complain to people higher up.  This 
is what appears to have prompted that note.  He has finished his 
bachelors degree in finance and is now going to use the GI Bill 
to get a second bachelors degree.  Because he has finished with a 
3.71  GPA  which is in the top 7% of one of the top ten accounting 
schools in the nation, he believes he has  redeemed himself  and 
should be given a  second chance.  The Naval officers recruiter 
wants  him  to  test  to  get  into  the  Naval  officers  training 
program.  He is not sure if he can pass the tests but  it  sounds 
like  a  good  way  to  pay  the  military  back  for  all  they  have 
invested in him and start a new career.  He was not diagnosed by 
a  psychiatrist  or  a  clinical  psychologist  at  the  time  of 
discharge.  According  to  the  regulations  he  has  read  and  the 
lawyer assigned to him  at  Ramstein AFB,  this  should have  been 
necessary. 
Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is attached at 
Exhibit G. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
1.  The  applicant  has  exhausted  all  remedies  provided  by 
existing law or regulations. 

2.  The application was timely filed. 

Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
3. 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error or  injustice.  We 
took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the 
merits  of  the  case  and  we  commend  the  applicant  for  his 
accomplishments in pursuing to  further his education.  However, 
it  appears  that  responsible  officials  applied  appropriate 
standards  in  effecting  his  separation,  and  we  do  not  find 
persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated  or 
that  the  applicant  was  not  afforded  all  the  rights  to  which 
entitled  at  the  time  of  discharge.  The  Board  notes  that  the 
records show the  applicant was  referred by  his  commander f o r   a 
mental health evaluation.  This evaluation in July 1996 resulted 
in a diagnosis of  Personality Disorder, Not  Otherwise Specified 
as noted in a letter to his commander signed by a mental health 
provider and countersigned by  the psychiatrist who was  chief of 

5 

97-02553 

t 

L,,e  service.  We also note he was enterec  into counseling but his 
failure to respond positively prompted his subsequent discharge. 
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this 
application. 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

The applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  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 this application in 
Executive Session on 15 October 1998, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

Mr. Robert D. Stuart, Panel Chair 
Mr. Henry Romo, Jr. , Member 
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member 
Ms. Gloria J. Williams, Examiner (without vote) 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 August 1997, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 2 February 1998. 
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 February 1998. 
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 9 March 1998, w/atchs. 
Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 23 August 1998, w/atchs. 

12 January 1998. 

ROBERT D. STUART 
Panel Chair 

6