RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-00319
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  Hammond A. Beale, J.D.
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her discharge  case  be  reviewed  to  the  end  that  she  meet  a  Medical
Evaluation Board (MEB).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was involuntarily separated from the  Air  Force  on  15  Aug  06.   Her
commander's decision was based solely on the recommendation of  the  nursing
psychologist assigned to the Life Skills Center.  During the  processing  of
her discharge, she was not given a Medical  Evaluation  Board  (MEB).    She
has had two psychiatric stays, was committed to  an  outpatient  psychiatric
program for five weeks, and saw a therapist (which she is  still  seeing  to
this date).  She has been repeatedly diagnosed with some form of  depression
and anxiety.  She underwent an eight hour session at the Life Skills  Center
which consisted of two computerized tests with over 700 questions  combined.
 The last  four  hours  were  spent  reviewing  the  nursing  psychologist’s
opinion of her answers.  She was diagnosed with a personality  disorder  and
was  deemed  unfit  for  military  service.   Her  commander   involuntarily
separated  her  without  taking  into  consideration  any  of  the  previous
doctors' diagnoses or an MEB.  She wants the  opportunity  to  redress  this
course  of  action.   She  was  never  given  the  opportunity   because   a
personality disorder discharge does not warrant an MEB.

In support of the application, the applicant submits her personal  statement
and copies of release authorizations.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 23 Jan 97.

On 6 Jul 06, the applicant's commander notified the applicant  that  he  was
recommending her discharge from the Air Force for  a  personality  disorder.
The reason for the proposed action was that on  or  about  23  May  06,  the
applicant was examined by a clinical psychologist  and  was  diagnosed  with
adjustment disorder and personality disorder so severe that her  ability  to
function in the military environment was significantly impaired.

In  addition,  the  applicant's  commander  also  indicated  she  was  being
discharged for the following minor disciplinary infractions:

      a)  Between on or about 13 and 19 Dec 03, she failed to obey a  lawful
order to  contact  the  Officer-In-Charge  (OIC)  about  a  leave  extension
request,  as  ordered.   For  this  offense,  she  received  a   Letter   of
Admonishment (LOA).

      b)  On or about 2 Sep 05, she was  disrespectful  towards  a  superior
commissioned officer, by walking away  before  being  dismissed.   For  this
misconduct she received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).

      c)  On or about 16  Feb  06,  she  failed  to  attend  the  retirement
ceremony of the squadron commander, as directed.  In addition, she  provided
several false official statements to her chain of  command  when  questioned
as to the above failure to go.  For this misconduct, she  received  an  LOR,
and an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) was established.

      d)  On or about 4 May 06, she failed to obey a lawful order  given  by
her commander, to take all matters through  the  proper  chain  of  command,
before going to him directly.  For this misconduct, she received an LOR.

      e)  On or about 12 May 06, she failed to go at the time prescribed  to
her appointed place of duty.  For this misconduct, she received  an  Article
15.

The applicant was advised of her rights.  After  consulting  military  legal
counsel, the applicant submitted statements on her own behalf and offered  a
conditional  waiver  of  the  rights  associated  with   an   administrative
discharge hearing contingent upon her receipt of no less than  an  honorable
discharge.

In a legal review of the discharge case file, dated 27  Jul  06,  the  Staff
Judge Advocate found the file legally sufficient and  recommended  that  the
applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge.

The discharge authority approved the discharge action and directed that  the
applicant be issued an honorable discharge.

On 15 Aug 06, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of  AFI  36-
3208 (Personality Disorder) and furnished an honorable discharge.   She  had
served 9 years, 6 months and 23 days on active duty.

On 13 Sep 07, the Board denied the applicant's request to remove the  above-
mentioned Article 15.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted  from
the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters  prepared  by
the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C, E and F.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  recommends  a  change  to  the   applicant's
narrative reason for discharge and to award her a discharge  with  severance
pay with a 10 percent disability rating.

The BCMR Medical Consultant states the  applicant  was  hospitalized  at  an
Army hospital from 26 Feb  06  to  13  Mar  06  for  suicidal  ideation.   A
psychiatrist diagnosed her with "Depressive Disorder, single episode,  ruled
out Personality Disorder."  She was then enrolled  in  a  civilian  hospital
program and continued treatment on an outpatient basis until 24 Apr 06.

On 21 Mar 06, she reported that she was  experiencing  "unnecessary  stress"
as a result of having to call her first sergeant  every  evening.   She  was
seen by a clinical social worker who agreed with the previous  diagnosis  of
depressive disorder.  She was seen often in the mental health  clinic  on  a
walk-in, unscheduled basis,  rather  than  having  more  in-depth  scheduled
visits.  On 6 May 06, a civilian psychiatrist stated that her diagnosis  was
major depression, secondary to a hospitalization for suicidal ideation.   On
19 May 06, she was seen for a scheduled appointment with a  clinical  social
worker who  added  the  diagnosis  of  Personality  Disorder  (oppositional-
defiant traits)  to  her  previous  diagnosis  of  Depressive  Disorder  and
occupational problems.   On  23  May  06,  the  applicant  had  a  commander
directed evaluation which led to the diagnosis of Adjustment  Disorder  with
Depressed Mood with occupational problem, and Personality Disorder.   On  25
May 06, she reported that she had been doing "really well" and was happy  to
find out that she was pregnant.  On 31 May 06, she was no  longer  reporting
suicidal ideation and the diagnosis of depression was removed as it  was  no
longer valid; however, it was re-instituted  on  14  Jun  06  when  she  was
informed of her Commander's plan to issue her an Article 15.  On 14 Jul  06,
she handed a prescription slip from a civilian provider with  the  diagnosis
of bipolar disorder on it and asked to meet an MEB for that  diagnosis.   On
20 Jul 06, she  was  reassessed  and  the  diagnosis  again  was  Depressive
Disorder  with  occupational  problem  and   Personality   Disorder.    This
diagnosis was confirmed on her next three visits.  There was no evidence  of
psychosis at any time.

Adjustment Disorder and Personality Disorder are conditions  that  alone  or
together may render  an  individual  unsuitable  for  military  service  and
subject to an administrative  discharge.   During  periods  of  stress,  the
manifestations   of   Personality   and   Adjustment   Disorders   including
maladaptive coping mechanisms typically become more apparent and  thus  more
readily identified by mental health  professionals.   Personality  Disorders
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 applicant's  depressive  episodes  do  not  appear  to  be  constant  or
permanent  in  nature,  usually  manifesting  themselves  around   workplace
issues.  The suicidal thoughts expressed by the applicant could be a  result
of her personality disorder and her coping mechanisms to call  attention  to
her job related stress, but  have  occurred  with  sufficient  frequency  to
warrant consideration of an MEB.  According to AFI 48-123, an MEB should  be
initiated whenever psychiatric  conditions  are  associated  with  recurrent
duty impairment (e.g. hospitalization), conditions which require  continuing
psychiatric support beyond one year (likely to happen) and  individuals  who
experience recurrent depression or anxiety  disorders,  require  psychiatric
medication for greater than one year and who have been  hospitalized  for  a
psychiatric condition  make  consideration  of  an  MEB  appropriate.   Upon
reviewing her service medical  records,  including  detailed  mental  health
records, assessment of the applicant's social and industrial impairment  was
not established.  However, it appears that her depressive disorder  did  not
affect the applicant's demeanor  or  her  ability  to  perform  her  duties.
Thus, it appears that  the  applicant's  social  and  industrial  impairment
assessment would have been termed as "mild."  The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant
opines that if the applicant had met an MEB,  she  likely  would  have  been
discharged with severance pay with a disability rating of  no  greater  than
10 percent.

However, it is conceivable that  her  commander  might  have  considered  an
administrative discharge based on her multiple  disciplinary  actions.   Had
this occurred, a "dual action" case would have been opened.   The  Secretary
of the Air Force Personnel Council would then be  tasked  to  determine  the
reason for the separation,  and  the  characterization  of  the  applicant's
service.   The  Council  would  likely  have  noted  that  the   applicant's
Personality Disorder, not her depression, prompted her misconduct  and  that
Personality Disorder is non-compensable.  The Council  would  then  have  to
weigh the severity of the misconduct versus the severity of the  applicant's
condition.  In this case, the medical condition would have  been  considered
relatively mild and did not influence her behavior, which also was  not  the
most egregious.

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The SAF/MRB  (Legal  Advisor)  states  the  applicant  was  administratively
discharged for a personality disorder.  She was not  processed  through  the
disability evaluation system at the time of her discharge.  If she  had  met
an MEB and been found  medically  fit  for  duty  (This  and  all  following
emphasis is the Legal Advisor’s), she would not have  been  dual  processed,
but administratively separated for being unsuitable  (not  unfit)  based  on
the personality disorder, a non-compensable condition.

If (and only if) the applicant has established she should  have  been  found
unfit for duty, then the case should have been  dual  processed,  and  there
then appears to  be  an  error  upon  which  to  consider  basing  a  record
correction.  The Legal Advisor opines if the case had been  dual  processed,
the Personnel Council would have separated the  applicant  with  10  percent
disability rate rather  than  approve  the  administrative  separation.   He
opines the Personnel Council would  have  approved  the  medical  separation
because  this  was  a  convenience-of-the-government  discharge  based  upon
unsuitability, not one for misconduct.

If the Board believes the member should have been found  unfit,  or  decides
to extend the applicant the benefit of the doubt on that issue,  he  concurs
with the medical advisor's initial recommendation to change  the  record  to
show a medical separation for  depression  with  a  ten  percent  disability
rating without reduction for the personality disorder.

The complete Legal Advisor's evaluation is at Exhibit E.

The BCMR Medical Consultant states his recommendations previously made  were
based on the likely scenario that the applicant would have met an  MEB.   He
states  MEB's  often  make  pragmatic  decisions  to  discharge   a   member
expeditiously rather than prolonging a member's active duty  status  in  the
Air Force by waiting for administrative action or a  dual  action  decision;
however, this is not necessarily  the  proper  procedure.   If  an  MEB  was
accomplished and administrative action was  taken  simultaneously,  the  MEB
would likely have determined that although the applicant's depression was  a
ratable diagnosis, it did not interfere with the performance of her  duties.
 On the  other  hand,  her  personality  disorder  was  affecting  her  duty
performance and led to the administrative action.   He  opines  the  correct
decision would have been to return the applicant to duty and  then  initiate
administrative discharge action.

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant's addendum is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the  applicant  on  27
Aug 07 and 15 Oct 07, respectively, for review and comment within  30  days.
On 12 Nov 07, the applicant requested her case  be  administratively  closed
so that she could hire legal  counsel  and  have  more  time  to  adequately
prepare her response (Exhibit H).  Consequently,  her  case  was  closed  on
21 Nov 07 (Exhibit I).

On  14  Apr  08,  counsel  concurred  with  the  medical  advisor's  initial
recommendation to change  the  record  to  show  a  medical  separation  for
depression with a ten percent disability rating without  reduction  for  the
personality disorder (Exhibit J).  Case was  reopened  on  29  May  08,  per
counsel's request (Exhibit L).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest  of
justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice.  A majority of  the  Board  agrees  with
the Medical  Consultant’s  original  opinion  that  action  and  disposition
regarding her case were not proper and equitable reflecting compliance  with
Air Force directives at the time in that she should have  met  an  MEB.   We
noted the Medical Consultant and Legal Advisor’s opinion  that  had  an  MEB
been accomplished, she most likely would have received a medical  separation
for  depression  with  a  10  percent  disability  rating.   That  said  and
notwithstanding counsel’s concurrence  with  a  medical  separation  and  10
percent disability, a Board majority finds that  the  only  certain  way  to
ensure the applicant receives consideration for full and fitting  relief  is
to provide her an opportunity to meet an MEB.  Therefore, we  recommend  the
applicant's records be corrected to the extent indicated below.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issues involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to  show  that  invitational  travel  orders  were
issued by competent authority for the purpose of  evaluation  by  a  Medical
Evaluation Board (MEB) and a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), if  necessary,
to determine her medical condition as of  15  August  2006;  and,  that  the
results  of  the  evaluation  be  forwarded  to  the  Air  Force  Board  for
Correction of Military Records at the earliest practicable date so that  all
necessary and appropriate actions may be completed; and,  that  all  charges
for the physical examination be, and hereby are, waived.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 17 Jul 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Wallace F. Beard Jr., Panel Chair
            Mr. Anthony P. Reardon, Member
      Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member

By a majority vote, the members voted to correct  the  record.   Mr. Anthony
P. Reardon voted to deny  the  request  and  did  not  desire  to  submit  a
minority report.  The  following  documentary  evidence  was  considered  in
AFBCMR BC-2007-00319:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Jan 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 20 Aug 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Aug 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRB (Legal Advisor), dated 2 Oct 07.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 2 Oct 07.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Oct 07.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Nov 07.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 21 Nov 07.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, Counsel, dated 14 Apr 08.
    Exhibit K.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 May 08.
    Exhibit L.  Letter, Counsel, dated 13 May 08.




                                   WALLACE F. BEARD JR.
                                   Panel Chair





AFBCMR BC-2007-00319




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 116), it is directed
that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that invitational travel
orders were issued by competent authority for the purpose of evaluation
by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and a Physical Evaluation Board
(PEB), if necessary, to determine her medical condition as of 15 August
2006; and, that the results of the evaluation be forwarded to the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records at the earliest
practicable date so that all necessary and appropriate actions may be
completed; and, that all charges for the physical examination be, and
hereby are, waived.





  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency