RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00380 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His narrative reason for separation of “Conditions that interfere 
with military service-not disability-character and behavior 
disorder” be changed to a medical discharge. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He should have been medically discharged because of his mental 
disorder. He is trying to obtain Department of Veterans Affairs 
(DVA) disability benefits. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
military service records. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 16 Dec 70, the applicant entered active duty in the Regular 
Air Force and was progressively promoted to the grade of staff 
sergeant. 

 

On 8 May 85, he was diagnosed by a clinical psychologist as 
having a “Paranoid Personality Disorder.” The medical summary 
shows the applicant had presented on several occasions to the 
emergency room, primary care, and the mental health clinic in Nov 
71, Mar 72, Jul 74, Jun 80, Aug 83, and Feb 85 for “nervousness, 
depression, insomnia, job dissatisfaction, test anxiety, tension, 
and flying off the handle.” The report shows a previous 
diagnosis of “Occupational Maladjustment and Passive-Aggressive 
Personality Disorder” in 1975 and that in Nov 77 he was referred 
for electroencephalogram (EEG) because of a history of “Explosive 
Personality,” manifested by “fierce temper outbursts, violence, 
and destructiveness.” Additional extracted statements from the 
psychological assessment reads: “In summary, there is strong 
evidence of a personality disorder, particularly of a paranoid 
type. Given the lengthy history of job problems, problems 
handling stress, and temper outbursts, it is likely [the 
applicant’s] behavior and attitude will continue pretty much as 
it has, especially given his lack of insight and denial of 


responsibility for his troubles. Since the Air Force does not 
consider a personality disorder a psychiatric problem, any 
further action should be administrative and based on [the 
applicant’s] duty performance.” 

 

On 23 May 85, the applicant was notified by his squadron 
commander that he was recommending his discharge from the Air 
Force for conduct and adjustment disorders and failure to perform 
duties properly. The specific reasons for the proposed action 
were the results of an 8 May 85, psychological evaluation and the 
diagnosis of Paranoid Personality Disorder, and his failure to 
perform his duties in a manner commensurate with rank, time in 
service, and age. Also, that his bearing and behavior when 
coupled with emotional outbursts had repeatedly resulted in 
actions and comments inappropriate for a noncommissioned officer. 
When counseled for substandard areas of performance, he became 
uncontrollably excited and used threatening facial, hand, and 
body gestures and verbal comments. The commander recommended the 
applicant receive a general discharge. 

 

On 10 Jun 85, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge 
notification and that he had consulted with military counsel. 
The applicant offered a conditional waiver of his rights 
associated with an administrative discharge board hearing, 
contingent upon his receipt of no less than an honorable 
discharge. On 12 Jun 85, his commander accepted the conditional 
waiver and changed his recommendation to an honorable discharge. 

 

On 14 Jun 85, the case file was reviewed by the deputy staff 
judge advocate and found legally sufficient. The discharge 
authority approved the separation and directed an honorable 
discharge. 

 

On 18 Jun 85, the applicant was honorably discharge by reason of 
“conditions that interfere with military service – not disability 
– character and behavior disorder.” He served on active duty for 
14 years, 6 months, and 3 days. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 error or injustice. After reviewing 
the available evidence of record, we do not find the applicant 
has suffered from an error or injustice. The preponderance of 
evidence shows the applicant received evaluations, and care, 
through the mental health clinics, and may have been hospitalized 
at least once. In each instance the applicant’s primary 


diagnosis fit into a category of “mental disorders” not 
considered a disability under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, (Conditions that interfere 
with military service-not disability-character and behavior 
disorder) rendering the applicant unsuitable for military 
service. Among the listed conditions are Personality Disorders, 
Disruptive Behavior Disorders, Adjustment Disorders, and Impulse 
Control Disorders. Therefore, we do not believe the applicant 
has sustained his burden of proof that an error or injustice 
occurred and we see no basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought in this application. 

 

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 issue involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2011-00380 in Executive Session on 15 Nov 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Jan 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair