Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01941
Original file (BC-2004-01941.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01941
            INDEX NUMBER: 100.00

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 21 DEC 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated to active duty, or in the alternative, his separation  code
and Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow  his  entry  into
the Air Force Reserve (AFRes) or Air National Guard (ANG).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He served five years in the Air Force and prior to his  arrival  at  Tyndall
AFB, he had received three performance reports  recommending  his  immediate
promotion.  However, due to events in his  personal  life,  he  made  a  few
wrong decisions.  He would  like  a  chance  to  prove  he  is  suitable  to
continue to serve in the Air Force.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on  17
March 1999.  A 9 February 2004  command-directed  Mental  Health  Evaluation
diagnosed the  applicant’s  conditions  as  alcohol  abuse  and  personality
disorder not otherwise specified with  schizoid,  obsessive  compulsive  and
narcissistic  personality  traits,  and   recommended   his   administrative
discharge for conditions that interfere with military service.  On  8  March
2004, he received notification that he was being recommended  for  discharge
for conditions that interfere with  military  service  (mental  disorders  -
personality disorder).  The commander’s reason for the action was  a  mental
health evaluation that found applicant’s personality disorder was so  severe
that it would significantly impair his ability to  function  in  a  military
environment.   The  discharge  authority  approved  the  discharge  and   he
received an honorable discharge on 22 March 2004, under  the  provisions  of
AFI  36-3208  (Personality  Disorder),   and   was   issued   RE   code   2C
(Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge).  He had  completed  a
total of 5 years and 6 days of active service and was serving in  the  grade
of staff sergeant (E-5) at the time of discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states,  in  part,  that
applicant’s discharge was consistent with  the  procedural  and  substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation and was within  the  discretion  of
the discharge authority.  Applicant has not submitted any  evidence  of  any
errors or injustices that occurred  in  the  processing  of  his  discharge.
Further, he provided no facts warranting his reinstatement  to  active  duty
or change to his RE code.

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The recommendation by the mental health evaluator is incorrect and is  based
on three days of questioning, without observing him perform his duties in  a
military environment.  This was not sufficient to determine  him  unsuitable
to perform in a military environment.  Otherwise, he would never  have  been
able to successfully complete Basic Military Training,  Technical  Training,
Airmen Leadership  School,  and  receive  an  Air  Force  Achievement  Medal
(AFAM).  The reason for the evaluation  was  because  of  things  that  were
going on in his personal life.  For this reason, he elected not  to  request
a review board and accepted the honorable discharge.  He was a  good  airman
and made a mistake.  He has since resolved his personal issues and can be  a
valuable and productive member of the Air Force.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the  records
is warranted.  After experiencing a significant disturbance in  occupational
functioning apparently in the setting of unspecified personal problems,  the
applicant underwent a comprehensive Mental  Health  Evaluation  (MHE)  which
diagnosed his condition as a personality disorder.  A  personality  disorder
is an enduring pattern of  maladjustment  in  the  individual’s  personality
structure  which  is  not  medically  disqualifying  but  may   render   the
individual unsuitable for further military service  and  may  be  cause  for
administrative discharge by the individual’s unit commander.  A  history  of
a personality disorder severe enough to warrant administrative discharge  is
permanently disqualifying for reenlistment.   The  fact  that  he  did  well
during his first four years of service and the fact that he  is  doing  well
at this time does not contradict the diagnosis since symptoms wax  and  wane
according to situation and stress.  His history of  personel  problems  that
resulted in significant  impairment  of  occupational  functioning  combined
with the results of the psychological evaluation  indicate  that  he  is  at
risk  for  recurrent  problems  under  similar  circumstances  of   military
occupational and personal stress.

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit J.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He did fail his quality control evaluation for patrolman twice, his  7-skill
level  end-of-course  examination  once,  and  his  off  duty  conduct   was
unacceptable.  However, these failures and conduct were the  result  of  his
personal issues at the time, for which he is  to  be  blamed,  but  all  are
correctable to an outstanding level.  While  he  does  have  some  obsessive
compulsive traits, he has no narcissistic and schizoid traits.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit L.

_________________________________________________________________

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  agree
with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force  offices  of  primary
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the  basis  for  our  conclusion
that the applicant has not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.
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  BC-2004-01941
in Executive Session on 23 June 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                       Mr. Christopher D. Carey, Member
                       Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Jun 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Oct 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Oct 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 23 Oct 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Nov 04.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Feb 05.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Feb 05.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Mar 05.
    Exhibit J.  Memo, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 20 Apr 05.
    Exhibit K.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 May 05.
    Exhibit L.  Letter, Applicant, dated 30 May 05, w/atchs.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03024

    Original file (BC-2003-03024.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 20 August 2002, a psychiatrist diagnosed him with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and referred him to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that applicant’s service medical records clearly show the condition existed prior to military service having onset in childhood. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02030

    Original file (BC-2002-02030.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 25 March 2002, the applicant's commander notified him that he was being discharged for mental disorders, specifically a personality disorder. The Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE indicates that based on the review of his case file, his RE code 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” is correct. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03151

    Original file (BC-2010-03151.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change her narrative reason for separation from Personality Disorder to a medical discharge; however, recommends the Board consider granting relief by changing the narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority.” The Medical Consultant states the applicant was diagnosed with an Anxiety Disorder and a Personality Disorder. As such, he recommends it be changed...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00529

    Original file (PD2009-00529.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The CI’s reported minimum weight was 96% of the minimum expected weight based on the minimum normal BMI and remained above 85% of the MLIC desirable weight (133.5 pounds). Other than anorexia nervosa, no other ratable mental conditions were forwarded to the PEB for adjudication by the MEB psychiatry evaluation. I have reviewed the subject case pursuant to reference (a) and, for the reasons set forth in reference (b), approve the recommendation of the Physical Disability Board of Review Mr....

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01900

    Original file (BC-2003-01900.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01900 INDEX CODE: 110.02, 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His uncharacterized discharge be changed to a medical discharge. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was not properly discharged from the Air Force. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01343

    Original file (BC-2005-01343.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He would like his discharge changed to honorable because of medical conditions having an effect on his service. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 30 Dec 04. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence...

  • CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2012-128

    Original file (2012-128.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In this regard, the JAG stated the following; Applicant states that he delayed filing his application because his “mental health disorders clouded the injustice and the service connection was just realized.” Applicant, however, was aware in 1988 that he was being discharged for unsuitability due to a personality disorder, and his DD Form 214, which he signed, shows that at the time of discharge, he had less than two years of active duty. Applicant has not proven, however, that he served on...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2002-03351

    Original file (BC-2002-03351.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Whether the applicant’s symptoms in the months prior to entering active duty were of such character or severity that would have warranted reporting by the applicant cannot be clearly determined from the available evidence, but evidence does suggest that onset of clinically significant symptoms occurred following entry onto active duty. Upon this review, the Board will find that absolutely no evidence of any mental health conditions existed prior to signing the AFHPSP contact on August 29,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02150

    Original file (BC-2004-02150.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was discharged effective 20 October 1970 with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. On 26 July 2000, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) considered and disapproved the applicant’s request to change his discharge to a disability separation (Exhibit F). _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-00220

    Original file (BC-2008-00220.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s request for granting establishment of the designation that his PTSD was the direct result of armed conflict or caused by an instrumentality of war, during a period of war. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant, through his service representative states...