RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01870 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

The following changes be made to his DD Form 214, Certificate of 
Release or Discharge from Active Duty: 

 

 1. His narrative reason for separation (Personality Disorder) 
and separation code (JFX) be removed from his record. 

 

 2. His reentry (RE) code be changed. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He has provided statements from two different Department of 
Veteran’s Affairs (DVA) doctors who have stated he does not have 
a personality disorder. 

 

The codes are preventing him from gaining employment. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his 
DD Form 214, and VA mental health records from Fargo, ND in Aug 
05, and Salisbury, NC in Apr 10. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 28 Jun 00, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force, and was 
progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman. 

 

On 3 May 05, the applicant was diagnosed with a personality 
disorder. Psychological testing confirmed the presence of his 
anger problems, as well as a long term pattern of maladaptive 
behaviors, to include an indication that he is “impulsive, 
hostile towards others, agitated, and given to quick changes in 
mood.” 

 

On 7 Jun 05, the applicant was notified by his squadron commander 
that she was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for a 
condition that interfered with military service, specifically, a 
mental disorder. The reason for the proposed action was the 


applicant was diagnosed with a Personality Disorder that rendered 
him unfit for duty. It was determined his long-standing disorder 
of character, behavior, and adaptability was of such severity so 
as to preclude him from adequately performing in military 
service. 

 

On 8 Jun 05, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
notification of discharge and after consulting with legal 
counsel, waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf. 

 

On 16 Jun 05, the base legal office reviewed the case and found 
it legally sufficient to support the basis for separation. The 
discharge authority approved the separation and directed an 
honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation. 

 

On 22 Jun 05, the applicant was honorably discharged, in the 
grade of senior airman, by reason of “Personality Disorder.” He 
served on active duty for a period of 4 years, 11 months, and 
25 days. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of his request to change his 
narrative reason for separation and separation code. DPSOS 
states based on the documentation on file in the master personnel 
records, the discharge to include the narrative reason for 
separation and separation code was consistent with the procedural 
and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was 
within the discretion of the discharge authority. 

 

DPSOS further states the discharge package clearly indicates the 
applicant was counseled on numerous occasions regarding his 
conduct and was afforded an opportunity to meet Air Force 
standards prior to the initiation of his discharge. Although the 
applicant is apparently succeeding and coping well in his 
civilian capacity, it does not change the basis for which he was 
discharged. The military environment is unique and stressors 
encountered in such an environment may not appear or surface when 
removed from the military environment. 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of his request to change his RE 
code. DPSOA states the applicant’s RE code (2C) is correct based 
on his involuntary discharge with an honorable character of 
service and is not affected by his medical diagnosis at the time 
of his separation. 

 

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends consideration for a change 
in the applicant’s narrative reason for separation and 
corresponding separation code, but no change in his assigned RE 
code. 


 

The BCMR Medical Consultant states it should be noted the 
probable explanation for the differences in the diagnostic 
conclusions reached by the military mental health provider on 
3 May 05, as compared to the VA examiner on 30 Aug 05; the former 
basing the diagnostic conclusion upon objective testing and an 
unsolicited pattern of observed behavior during military service, 
as compared to that which was determined through an elective 
interview, without the benefit of access to the military 
evaluation documentation. The Medical Consultant opines that, if 
not due to a Personality Disorder, then the applicant’s recurring 
disrespect for authority figures, threatened physical 
altercation, self-reported unprofessional behavior without regard 
to the consequences, may have been more appropriately 
characterized as “Misconduct – Minor Disciplinary Infractions,” 
and resulting in a possible general (under honorable conditions) 
discharge. Notwithstanding the applicant’s post-service 
evaluations, one accomplished within two months of separation and 
the other in 2010, the Consultant finds this evidence 
insufficient to invalidate the findings of the military mental 
health provider and the subsequent actions taken by the discharge 
authority. 

 

The Medical Consultant opines that returning the applicant to 
military service, while satisfying his employment needs, would 
not be in the best interest of the Air Force. Even if not due to 
a personality disorder, there likely remains a predisposition for 
an unexpected, or even expected, recurrence or exacerbation of 
the applicant’s previously demonstrated maladaptive pattern of 
behavior or coping methodology under certain regimented military-
unique environmental, occupational, and emotional stressors 
beyond his span of control; e.g., being assigned to a location 
that is not desirable to him. 

 

If the Board is convinced the applicant’s pattern of behavior 
during military service was improperly characterized or the 
military mental health provider committed an error in making the 
concluding diagnosis of Personality Disorder; or that the 
applicant’s pattern of behavior represented a learned “survival 
skill” or fits within the spectrum of normal behavior then an 
outright change of the narrative reason would be an appropriate 
remedy; along with a change in separation code and RE code to 
allow application for reentry to military service. The Medical 
Consultant is of the opinion the military provider’s assessment 
was not erroneous. However, at the risk of sounding ambivalent, 
considering the 2010 repeat mental health evaluation which also 
did not find evidence of a Personality Disorder, and the 
likelihood the applicant’s pattern of behavior simply represented 
misconduct, the Consultant opines that consideration of a change 
in narrative reason for discharge, e.g., “Secretarial Authority,” 
may be appropriate. 

 

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit 
E. 


 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 4 Apr 11, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, 
a response has not been received (Exhibit F). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice regarding the 
applicant’s request for a change in his reenlistment eligibility 
(RE) code. The RE code “2C” issued at the time of his separation 
accurately reflects the circumstances of his separation and 
should remain unchanged. Therefore, in the absence of persuasive 
evidence indicating the RE code is erroneous or unjust; we find 
no basis to recommend granting this portion of the applicant’s 
requests. 

 

4. Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has 
been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or 
injustice warranting a change in the narrative reason for the 
applicant’s separation. After reviewing the evidence of record, 
the applicant’s contentions, and the assessments provided by the 
Air Force offices of responsibility and the BCMR Medical 
Consultant, we believe the applicant’s narrative reason for 
separation and corresponding code should be changed to 
“Secretarial Authority” and “KFF” respectively. We find no error 
in the actions taken to effect his discharge, and note the 
narrative reason assigned at the time of his separation was 
appropriate. However, in considering the applicant’s 2010 repeat 
mental health evaluation which did not find evidence of a 
personality disorder and recognizing the adverse impact his 
narrative reason may have on future employment, we believe any 
doubt in this matter should be resolved in the applicant’s 
behalf. Therefore, in order to preclude a possible injustice to 
the applicant, we recommend his records be corrected to the 
extent 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 he was 
discharged on 22 June 2005, with a narrative reason for 
separation of “Secretarial Authority” rather than “Personality 
Disorder,” and a separation code of “KFF” rather than “JFX.” 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-01870 in Executive Session on 24 May 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

, Panel Chair 

, Member 

, Member 

 

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

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 May 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 4 Nov 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 2 Dec 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, 

 dated 15 Mar 11. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Apr 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair