RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00480
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her General Discharge be upgraded to honorable.

The $2,000 she paid into the Montgomery GI bill  be  made  available  to
her.

The reason for her discharge be changed from misconduct  to  Secretarial
Authority.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was grossly mistreated during her assignment at the base  where  she
was discharged.

She became ill due to the constant  negative  stress;  it  impacted  her
emotional stability and resulted in administrative actions  being  taken
against her.

After an unfortunate misunderstanding between her  and  a  bank  teller,
whereby a sarcastic remark was made, was brought to the attention of Air
Force personnel, she was treated differently and railroaded out  of  the
Air Force.  She has provided documents from her  area  defense  counsel,
which she contends notes the “unjustified  harshness”  in  how  she  was
treated.  She has also submitted a letter she sent to the  Secretary  of
the Air Force requesting assistance to be transferred from her  base  of
assignment.

Applicant  provides  details  about   an   incident   relating   to   an
investigation that was conducted due to her failure to complete an  off-
duty employment form and the subsequent discovery of an  alias  she  was
accused of using in the past.   She  indicates  that  the  investigative
report also stated  that  she  purposely  withheld  information  on  her
clearance.  She was able to prove that it was a  case  of  the  security
investigator’s failure to thoroughly review the clearance report she had
completed.

After a year of being under constant attack, she started to  become  ill
from all the stress.  She was seen in  the  emergency  room  on  several
occasions  for  her  health  problems  and  was  also   taking   several
medications.  During this timeframe, she was given  an  Article  15  for
being insubordinate to her supervisor.  She contends that the details of
the incident clearly show that she should not have received the  Article
15.

Applicant has provided copies of various actions initiated  against  her
and her responses thereto.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant received her reserve appointment on 3 Oct 97 with the U.S.
Army.  She entered active duty with the Air Force on 23 Feb  99  in  the
grade of second lieutenant.  She  graduated  from  commissioned  officer
training on 23 Mar 99 and met standards.  She then attended  the  Public
Health Officer Course and graduated  5  Nov  99.   Her  Training  Report
indicates  that  she  met  academic  standards,  but  only  met  minimum
standards in the areas of military bearing, professionalism,  and  dress
and appearance.  She received two Officer Performance Reports during her
time in the Air Force.  The first report closing 3 Apr 00 was a referral
report with the applicant marked as “Does Not  Meet  Standards”  in  the
area of “Professional Qualities.”  The  applicant’s  second  report  was
also a referral report with her being marked “Does Not  Meet  Standards”
in the areas of “Leadership Skills” and “Professional Qualities.”

On 30 Mar 01, the Commander, Headquarters Air Force  Special  Operations
Command (HQ AFSOC/CC), notified the applicant  that  he  was  initiating
action against her  under  AFI  36-3206,  Chapter  3,  paragraphs  3.6.2
(Intentional or discreditable mismanagement of personal  affairs),  3.64
(serious  or  recurring  misconduct  punishable  by  military  or  civil
authorities) and 3.67 (intentionally misrepresenting or  omitting  facts
in  official  statements,  records,  or  commissioning  documents)  that
required her to show cause for retention on active duty.  On 15 Jun  01,
by addendum,  HQ  AFSOC/CC  added  to  the  basis  for  the  applicant’s
discharge due to the applicant’s receipt of an Article 15 for disrespect
to a superior commissioned officer and conduct unbecoming a commissioned
officer.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of  the  action  on  29  Jun  01  and
submitted matters in her behalf and did not waive her right to have  her
case forwarded to the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) for action.  On
6 Jul 01, HQ AFSOC/CC forwarded applicant’s case through AFPC  to  SECAF
with a recommendation that the applicant be discharged  with  a  general
discharge.  On 30 Jul 01, HQ USAF/JAG found the administrative discharge
against  the  applicant  legally  sufficient  and  recommended  to   the
Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) that the  applicant
be discharged with a General (under honorable conditions) Discharge.  On
30 Aug 01, the SECAF directed that the applicant be discharged from  the
Air Force under AFI 36-3207 and furnished with a general discharge.

While the applicant’s  discharge  from  service  was  pending,  she  was
experiencing medical problems that  resulted  in  a  Medical  Evaluation
Board (MEB) being convened.   The  MEB  convened  on    28  Aug  01  and
determined  that  the  applicant  was  suffering  from   Severe   Atopic
Dermatitis and recommended that she be referred to an Informal  Physical
Evaluation Board (IPEB) to determine her fitness for continued  service.
On 14 Sep 01, the IPEB found the  applicant’s  condition  unfitting  and
recommended that she be placed on the  Temporary  Disability  Retirement
List (TDRL) with a 30% compensable disability rating.  On 25 Sep 01, the
applicant concurred with the findings and recommendations  of  the  IPEB
and waived her right  to  a  Formal  PEB.   On  25  Sep  01,  AFPC/DPPDS
forwarded the recommendation of  the  IPEB  to  SAFPC  for  dual  action
processing based  on  the  recommendation  of  the  IPEB  to  place  the
applicant on the TDRL and the earlier determination by  SECAF  that  the
applicant be discharged with a general discharge.  On 5  Oct  01,  SECAF
directed that the applicant be discharged based on the  approved  action
of 30 Aug 01.  Disability processing was terminated.

On  16  May  02,  the  Air  Force  Discharge  Review  Board  denied  the
applicant’s requests that her discharge be  upgraded  to  honorable  and
that the reasons for her discharge be changed.

Additional facts pertinent to this case are contained in the evaluations
prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force found at Exhibits C
and D.

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends that the applicant’s discharge be
upgrade  to  honorable  with  the  reason  for  discharge  remaining  as
misconduct since the applicant has not requested a change to personality
disorder.

The applicant entered the Air Force at age 39 and  promptly  experienced
difficulties related to her personality disorder.  Despite  attempts  at
counseling,   administrative   discipline   and    psychotherapy,    the
difficulties continued leading to her administrative separation  with  a
general discharge for misconduct.  Although the applicant  contests  her
diagnosis of personality disorder, it is well supported by  evidence  of
record.  The recurring pattern of  interpersonal  discord  and  conflict
with police, bank tellers, shop clerks, supervisors,  and  coworkers  is
characteristic of personality disorder and not due merely to  an  unfair
supervisor.  Her  psycholic  distress  was  further  aggravated  by  the
presence of an existing prior to service Post Traumatic Stress Disorder,
details of  which  are  otherwise  not  available.   Her  severe  atopic
dermatitis also contributed to the circumstances as well.  Although  her
commander directed a mental health evaluation in Oct  00,  there  is  no
documentation in the discharge package that  her  unsuiting  personality
disorder and adjustment disorder were considered as a possible basis for
discharge.   At  the  time  of  the  command  directed   mental   health
evaluation, it appears that the mental health  providers  did  not  feel
that her condition was severe enough to  have  warranted  administrative
separation at the time.  In  retrospect,  the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant
opines  that  the  applicant’s  condition  was  severe  enough  to  have
warranted administrative  separation,  however,  it  would  appear  that
efforts were directed  at  retaining  and  rehabilitating  an  otherwise
valuable member whose misconduct was intermittent  and  generally  of  a
minor nature.

Personality disorders 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.  The service of officers discharged due  to
personality  disorder  may  still  be  characterized  as  General   when
misconduct outweighs any  positive  aspects  of  the  service  that  has
occurred.

The BCMR Medical Consultant believes that the discharge authority failed
to properly consider the applicant’s unsuiting condition and  that  such
consideration may have resulted in administrative  separation  based  on
her personality disorder with an honorable discharge characterization.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  Based on their
review of the documentation in the file, they believe the discharge  was
consistent with the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements  of  the
discharge  regulation.   Additionally,  the  discharge  was  within  the
discretion of the discharge authority.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In her response to the Air Force evaluations,  applicant  requests  that
the Board  review  her  records  and  make  the  correct  changes.   She
indicates that when she was evaluated by psychiatrist  in  the  location
where she was stationed at the time and at the  Veterans  Administration
in Albuquerque, NM, she was given a diagnosis  of  adjustment  disorder,
not  personality  disorder.   She  request  that  her  records   reflect
adjustment disorder,  not  personality  disorder.   She  indicates  that
military  mental  health  personnel  gave  her  the  diagnosis  of  Post
Traumatic  Stress  Disorder  (PTSD).   Since  she  was  suffering   from
PTSD/adjustment disorder, which is a medical issue and not a  misconduct
issue, she requests that the reason for her discharge  be  changed  from
misconduct to secretarial authority.

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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice.  We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however,  we  are
not persuaded that she has been the victim of  an  error  or  injustice.
The applicant’s case is somewhat complex in that you have verified  acts
of misconduct that provide the basis for her  discharge  for  misconduct
while at the same time she suffered from a severe personality  disorder.
While the applicant rejects the diagnosis of  personality  disorder,  we
accept the opinion of the BCMR Medical Consultant that documentation  in
the applicant’s medical record supports this diagnosis.   The  applicant
believes that at the time of her problems she was  suffering  from  Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder and an  Adjustment  Disorder.   As  such,  she
requests that this Board  change  the  reason  for  her  discharge  from
misconduct to “Secretarial Authority” as well as upgrade  the  character
of her discharge to honorable.  Regardless of which diagnosis we accept,
the issue before the Board appears to be should the applicant’s acts  of
misconduct be excused due to her medical condition?   While  it  appears
there  was  sufficient  basis   for   the   applicant’s   commander   to
administratively separate her for  her  diagnosed  personality  disorder
prior to her discharge for misconduct, we do not  find  the  commander’s
actions to be either arbitrary or capricious in this regard.   We  note,
according  to  the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant,  that  the   service   of
individuals discharged for personality disorder may be characterized  as
general when misconduct outweighs the positive aspects of their service.
 The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that she should  not
be held responsible for her  actions.   We  also  note  the  applicant’s
requests regarding the Montgomery G.I. Bill.  However, in  view  of  our
above findings, there is no basis to change her eligibility for benefits
in this program.  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  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 02-00480  in
Executive Session on 4 February 2003, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
      Ms. Martha Maust, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Jan 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant,
                dated 20 Sep 02.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Oct 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 18 Oct 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Nov 02.




                                   JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                                   Panel Chair