AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

. 

-- 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03009 
COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

The narrative reason for separation, "Personality Disorder,  be 
changed. 
The Separation Program Designator (SPD) code "JFX, 'I  be changed. 
The Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code a2C11 be changed. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

The reasons for his  separation are unjust.  The information on 
the  I'Attachment  to  AF  Form  31"  is  what  he  wrote  to  his 
supervisors, commander and  the Mental  Health  Department.  This 
letter started an evaluation of  himself  to prove  he  was  a bad 
influence on others and not a model airman, both of which are not 
true.  His  request  for discharge was  based  solely  on  his  not 
being  able  to adjust and  live a normal  life in the Air  Force. 
Applicant  states that his performance on the job did not suffer 
until he  spoke about problems he  was having and he was  fearful 
something  may  happen  on  the  basis  of  his  lack  of  sleep. 
Applicant states that his sleeping problems went away the day he 
arrived  home  and  he  has  not  had  a  problem  since.  Applicant 
states that he has no desire for military life again as he knows 
it  is  not  for  everyone.  To  have  a  reason  such  as  his  for 
discharge is simply wrong and degrading. 

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 1 March 1995 for a 
period of four ( 4 )   years. 
While serving in the grade of airman first class, applicant was 
notified by his commander on 6 May 1996, that he  (commander) was 
recommending applicant's discharge from. the U. S. Air Force for 
Conditions that Interfere with Military Service according to AFI 

36-3208, paragraph  5.11.1  (Mental Disorders).  The  commander 
stated  that  if  his  recommendation  was  approved,  applicant's 
service will be characterized as honorable.  The reasons for the 
action  were: 
Applicant  recently  underwent  a  mental  health 
evaluation at the commander's direction.  His  (commander) concern 
for  applicant's well-being  and  the  well-being  of  the  squadron 
were key factors in his decision to request that evaluation.  The 
mental health provider diagnosed applicant as having a Dysthymic 
Disorder  (Provisional) and Personality Disorder  (NOS) (prominent 
passive-aggressive  and  self-defeating  traits). 
The  provider 
stated  that  the  disorders  are  such  that  applicant's long-term 
ability to  function effectively  in the military  environment  is 
impaired. 

Applicant  acknowledged receipt of  the Letter of Notification on 
6 May  1996 and stated he understood his rights.  On 8 May 1996, 
applicant consulted military  legal counsel and waived his right 
to submit statements on his behalf.  On 9 May 1996, the Squadron 
Commander forwarded his recommendation to the Wing Commander, who 
concurred in the recommendation on 13 May 1996. 
On  15  May  1996,  the  Chief,  Psychology  Services  submitted  an 
Addendum to the Mental Evaluation of applicant.  [The Chief made 
essentially the same diagnosis as previously  stated.  However, in 
his  addendum,  he  indicated  that]  "The disorders are  so  severe 
that the member's ability to function effectively in the military 
environment is significantly impaired.'' 

On 17 May 1996, the Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the applicant's 
discharge  file  and  found  it  legally  sufficient  to  support his 
discharge  under  AFI  36-3208. 
He  recommended  applicant  be 
honorably discharged without probation and rehabilitation. 

On 21 May  1996, the Discharge Authority directed that applicant 
be  separated  with  an  honorable  discharge.  He  considered  the 
applicant for probation and rehabilitation under the provisions 
of AFI 36-3208, Chapter 7.  However, he found that applicant was 
not a suitable candidate. 
Applicant  was  honorably  discharged  on  24  May  1996  under  the 
provisions of AFI  36-3208  (Personality Disorder) with an RE code 
of 2 C .   He served 1 year, 2 months, and 24 days of active duty. 

-- 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Chief,  Medical  Consultant,  AFBCMR,  Medical  Advisor  SAF 
Personnel  Council,  states  that  available  records  reflect  that 
applicant  began  having  sleep  disturbance  within  two  months  of 
coming on active duty relating to his inability to adjust to the 
military  setting and regulations.  It is clear from information 
in the records, and provided by  the applicant, that he did not 
fit  into  the  military  life-style  and  suffered  from  insomnia 

2 

. .  

induced  by  his  consuming  desire  to  be  released  from  his 
obligation.  While no performance  reports are recorded, he  did 
receive a Letter of Evaluation which addressed his overall good 
performance and a concern only relating to his chronic fatigued 
state in relation to potential driving accidents-not that he had 
the  potential  to  harm  himself  or  others  willingly.  By  the 
examining psychologist's own admission, the testing performed in 
helping arrive at  the diagnosis was likely invalid based on the 
response  patterns  made  by  the  applicant. 
Therefore,  the 
diagnosis, itself, must  come under suspicion as being  flawed or 
invalid.  It  would  seem  more  reasonable to  have  arrived  at  a 
diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood  (DSM-IV Code 
309.0) rather than Personality Disorder, NOS  (DSM-IV Code 301.9) 
reflecting the  applicant's inability  to  adjust  to  the military 
setting.  Changing this diagnosis to more  closely indicate the 
true nature of  applicant's disorder is  indicated.  The Medical 
Consultant is of the opinion that the records should be  changed 
as recommended. 

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

The  Military  Personnel  Management  Specialist,  Programs  and 
Procedures  Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPPRS,  states  that  the  applicant's 
case has been reviewed for separation processing and there are no 
errors or irregularities causing an injustice to the applicant. 
The discharge complies with directives in effect at the time of 
his discharge.  Applicant did not identify any specific errors in 
the discharge processing nor provide facts which warrant a change 
to his records.  The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends a change 
to  the  narrative  reason  and  SPD  code. 
AFPC/DPPRS  has  no 
objection to  the change of  the narrative reason for separation 
and SPD code since the DOD Instructions makes no provision for a 
narrative reason of adjustment disorder. 
A  copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. 
The  Special  Programs  and  BCMR  Manager, HQ  AFPC/DPPAES,  states 
that the applicant received an honorable, injoluntary separation. 
Therefore, RE Code 112C1' is correct. 
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Applicant  responded to the Air  Force evaluations and states, in 
part, that he  agrees with the recommendations of  the Air  Force 
but  does  not  agree  with  leaving  the  RE  code  as  is. 
The 
recommendations  clearly  state  that  he  did  not  fit  into  the 
military  lifestyle which  he  disagrees with.  The  main  problem 
with his  sleep was working  night  shift and not  having  adequate 
sleeping quarters.  Applicant states that since the Air Force, he 
has looked into re-enlisting with other branches.  However, the 

3 

. .  

RE code limits his  liqibilit r  with certain branches but not all 
of them. 
He feels he l's  entitled to a second chance to serve his 
country. 

A copy of the applicant's response is attached at Exhibit G. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 

2.  The application was timely filed. 
3.  Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After 
reviewing the evidence of record, we believe there is some doubt 
as to the validity of the applicant's diagnosis of a personality 
disorder.  It  appears that  applicant was  unable  to  adjust  and 
live a normal life in the Air  Force and  had problems not being 
able to sleep, which the applicant states disappeared when he was 
subsequently  discharged  and  returned  home.  The  BCMR  Medical 
Consultant  states  that  it  would  seem  more  reasonable  to  have 
arrived at a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood 
rather  than  Personality  Disorder,  reflecting  the  applicant's 
inability to adjust to the military setting.  Also, the examining 
psychologist  admitted  that  the  testing  performed  in  helping 
arrive  at  the  diagnosis  of  a  personality  disorder  was  likely 
invalid based  on  the  response patterns  made  by  the  applicant. 
Therefore, we  believe  it  would  be  unjust  for  the  applicant  to 
continue to bear the stigma of being diagnosed with a personality 
disorder. 
We  believe,  and  agree  with  the  BCMR  Medical 
Consultant,  that  a  more  appropriate  narrative  reason  for 
separation would be a discharge under Secretarial Authority.  We 
also agree that the RE code should not be changed as it reflects 
an involuntary separation with an honorable discharge and was the 
correct code at the time of  the applicant's- discharge.  In view 
of  the  above,  we  recommend  that  the  applicant's  records  be 
corrected as indicated below. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that at  the time of 
his honorable discharge on 2 4   May 1996, the narrative reason for 
his  discharge  was  Secretarial  Authority  and  the  Separation 
Program Designator (SPD) code was KFF. 

4 

.. 

"/ 

,v 

'

.

 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 11 June  1998,  under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Robert W. Zook, Me.mber 
Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member 

All  members voted  to correct  the records, as recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A .   DD Form 149,  dated 26 Sep 97,  w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 20 Nov 9 7 .  
Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 Jan 9 8 .  
Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAES, dated 16 Jan 98. 
Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9  Feb 9 8 .  
Exhibit G.  Applicant's Letter, dated 11 Feb 98 

Panel Chair 

5 

. -  

B 

DEPARTMENT OF ,THE AIR  FORCE 

HEADQUARTCRU AIR  PORCk  PERSONNEL CENTER 

AANOOLPH  AIR FORCE EACIL TEXAS 

.  ' 

'JAN l ( 3  1998 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM  HQAPPC/I;)PPRS 

550 c street west ste I1 
Raaaotph AH3 TX 7815014713 

SUBJECT  Application for Correction of Military kcord- 

c 

Tht qplicmt, while &ng 

Force 24 May 96 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Personality Disorder) with an honorable 
discharge.  He served 01 year 02 Gxiths 24 days tatal active service. 

in the grade of airman first c l a q  WBQ dischargad h m  the Air 

Y 

Rcqnestad A&OL  The applicant is requesting that his narrahe reason for discharge be 

changed.  In addition, he request a change his separation code and reenby code. 

Basis fbr Request.  Applicant claims tfiat the ress~l for his discharge is unjust.  That hc did 
not have aperwnality disorder and his problem wrts an adjustment problem dealing with the 
military.  The advisory fhxnthe BCMR Medical consultaat, 20 Nov 97 provides infomation 
concerning applicant's medical condition at the time of his sepratioa  This advisory wiIl 
address only the diecharge processing in the case, 
- Facts.  The appliGarrt was ~ t i f i d  by his commander on 06 May 96, that discharge action had 
been initiated against him for a mmtal disorder.  The commander advised that the discharge 
c h i c  and the mental 
action was bung taken because he had been kcently evaluated by.& 
heal& provider diagnosed him as hrwing an Dysthymic Disorder @visionai)  and Personality 
Disorder NOS (promitlent passive-aggrtssive and d-defeating tr$its).  The provider also stated 
that the disorders are such that his long-term ability to fimction effectively in the military 
envimnment ii impaired. He was advised he had a right to consult counsel and h e  right to 
mbmit statements in his own behalf.  AppIiGant consulted legal camsel and voluntarily waived 
his rights to submit a statement in his own behalf. The discharge'casc wm reviewed by the base 
legal office and was hund to be Iegally sufEicient to support sepamtion. The discharge authoriw 
reviewed the discharge case and approved the nxammcadation for discharge fbr mental disorder 
and directad the applicant be given an hanorablt discharge. 

Discussion.  "hie  case has been reviewed fix qyraticm processing and there are M 

or 
imgularities causing an injustice to the applicant.  The discharge complies with directives in 
&cct  at the time of his discharge.  The records indicab member's military service was revimd 
and appropriate action was taken. 

' 

' 

,, 

. 

Rdcominendation.  Applicant did not identie any specific enwm in the discharge processing 

nor provide k t s  which warrant a chmge in his reason far separation or his separation code. 
Homm, the BCMR Medical Consultant recommds a change to his rqrrative reason for 
scpmtion to ''Seaetarial  Authority" and SPD code ohange to "KFF'  and provided the xatioaale 
for thc recommended change.  We have no objection to the change of the d v e
 reason fix 
scE#aation and SPD code aa recommended since the DOD Instructions makes no provision for a 
narrative reason of adjustmmt disorder. He has fild a timely request. 

v 

JOHN C. WOOT",  GS-9 
Military Personnel Mgmt Spec 
Programs and Procedures Branch 
Dir of Personnel Pm'gram Management 

Memorandum for the AFBCMR 

From:  BCMR Medical Consultant 

1535 Command Drive, EE Wing, 3rd  floor 
A n d m  AFB MD  20762-7002 

Subject: Applicatlon for Correction of Military Recods 

20 N O ~  97 
9763009 

.. 

Applicant's entire cas8 RIe has been reviewed and is forwarded with the following flndlngs, 
* 

conduaibns and recommendations. 

1 

REQUESTED ACTION:  The applicant was discharged under the provisions of #I  364206 
for conditions that lntarfere with military duties, mental disorder, after 1 year, 2 months, 24 days 
lon active duty.  He now applies requesting the records be changed to show a different reason 
for discharge and to change his reentry code and separation cc~des. 

FACTS:  Records available for nMew show that the applicant beg&  having sleep 

disturbance within 2 months of corning on active duty relating to his lnablllty to adjust to the 
mllltary settbg and reguldons.  During 8 brief period of leave at home before being assigned to 
Guam he did not experience these symptoms, but once In hi8 mael duty assignment the 
problems resumed and prompted him to seek an adminisbatlve discharge.  Wording of his 
written request to hie cammender seeking his discharge raised concern about hla and his unit's 
safety, and he was referred for mental health evaluatlon.  This evaluetian and testing led to a 
dkgnosid of personality disorder, not atherwise epecffied, with passive-aggmssive and self- 
defeating traits.  This, then, was used aa the basis for his subsequent dlschatge. 

DISCUSSION:  It Is dear from information in the m r d s  and provided by the applicant that 

he did not fit  into the military libstyle and sufiered from Insomnia induaed by his consuming 
desire to be released from his obligation.  Whlle no perfomanae reports are recorded, he did 
receive a Letter of Evaluatlan which addmsed his overall goad performance and a concern 
only relating to his chronic fatigued state in relation to potential driving accidents.  This, 
basically, was the applicanfs wncern also: that he would came an accident due to hls sleeping 
problems, not that ha had the potential to harm himself or others HlwlngIy.  By the examining 
psychologist's am admission, the testing performed in helplng arrhre at tha diagnosis was likely 
invalid based on the response patterns made by the applicant.  Therefore, the diagnosis, Itself, 
must come under suspicion as being flawed or Invalid.  It would seem mom I'eaSOnabl8 to have 
anived at a dlagnorrh of Adjustment Dlsorder with Depressed Mood (DSM-N Code 309.0) 
rather than Pemonalii Disorder, NOS (DSM-IV Code 301 .S) rdkting the applicant's inability 
to adjust to the milbry setting.  Changing this diagnosis to more closely indicate the true nafum 
of applicant's disorder le indicated. 

RECOMMENDATION: The Medical Consultant is dthe opinion that the records should be 
changed to indicate in Item 28 ofthe DD Form 214 'Secretarial Authority' as no mechanism 
eodsts cumntly to Wlect this diagnosis of adjustment disorder.  The separation code should be 
changed to WF but the mantry code should remain a8 is. 

//S/&vEo  i /  

FREDERICK W. HORNICK, Col., USAF, MC, FS 
Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR 
Mediil Advisor SAF Personnel Council 

-=- 

. 

-

+

 

a .  

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR  pfoRCE 

HUDQUARTERB  AIR  F  RC5 ?ERSOXNEL CENTER 

ORCE n u t  TEXAS 

, 

RANDOLPH AIR 

e 

I 

I

'

 

FROM:  HQ AFpclDPPAES 

550 C StFeet W& Ste IO 
Randolph AFB TX 781504712 

A review of applicaat's ca8e file w89 condactad  'Iht appiicant reoeived an horrorable, 

involuntary separation.  Therefore, Reenlistment Eligibility (RE)  Code "2C" is comct. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 97-03009 

JUL  2 7  1998 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF 

Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction 

of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A 
Stat 1 16), it is directed that: 

records of the Department of the Air Fo 
corrected to show that at the time of his 

24 May 1996, the narrative reason for his discharge was Secretarial Authority and the Separation 
Program Designator (SPD) code was KFF. 

Air Force Review Boards Agency