RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01199 

 

 COUNSEL: 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. He be medically retired. 

 

2. His narrative reason for separation of personality disorder 
be changed. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He should have been medically retired for his disabilities, 
which occurred during active duty service. He suffers daily 
with Fibromyalgia, Migraines, Depression, Shingles, and Anxiety, 
all of which occurred while he was serving in the military. 

 

His medical problems were not properly treated and it was not 
until he was treated by multiple civilian medical providers that 
he received the care he needed. 

 

When he served as a recruiter his problems became too much for 
him to handle, so he was placed in a medical/mental facility for 
three months. At that time, he was abruptly discharged without 
regard to his medical situation. He did not receive an exit 
physical and believes he fell through the cracks of the Military 
Disability Evaluation System (MDES) process. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement; copies of medical documents; his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued in 
conjunction with 22 Dec 05 discharge; letters of support from 
family and friends, and other supporting documents. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant reenlisted in the Regular Air Force, on 29 Mar 05, 
in the grade of staff sergeant. 


 

On 13 Dec 05, the squadron commander notified the applicant of 
administrative discharge action for conditions that interfere 
with military service: mental disorders – personality disorder. 
The specific reasons for the proposed action was that on or 
about 7 Oct 05, the applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment 
disorder with depressed mood and a personality disorder which 
significantly impaired his adaptability to function in the 
military. On that same date, the applicant acknowledged receipt 
of the discharge notification, and waived his right to consult 
counsel and to submit statements in his own behalf. The 
Assistant Staff Judge Advocate found the case file legally 
sufficient to support separation and recommended an honorable 
discharge, without probation and rehabilitation (P&R). The 
discharge authority approved the honorable discharge, without 
P&R. 

 

The applicant was discharged, on 22 Dec 05, by reason of 
personality disorder, with service characterized as honorable. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial, stating, in part, that based on 
the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the 
discharge to include the narrative reason for separation and 
type of separation was consistent with the procedural and 
substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was 
within the discretion of the discharge authority. DPSOS found 
no evidence of an error or injustice in the processing of the 
applicant's discharge. 

 

The applicant's mental health examination indicated his 
personality style was characterized by rigidity and an 
inflexible moralistic approach which significantly interferes 
with completion of his current duties. The applicant's 
personality style was particularly problematic in his current 
working environment but was not problematic in the environment 
of his previous career field. The conflicts between the 
applicant's personality and his environment resulted in the high 
level of distress and symptoms of depression. The applicant's 
personality disorder made it difficult for him to assimilate 
into the military environment. The applicant's personality 
disorder also made him unstable and unreliable for service with 
resultant occupational disturbance. The applicant's Adjustment 
Disorder with Depressed Mood was characterized by severe 
depressive symptoms to include thoughts about suicide which 
significantly interfered with functioning in completion of his 
duties. The applicant's disorder was a function of the 
interaction between his personality and the military 
environment. The report also states the adjustment disorder 
complicated by his personality disorder was sufficiently severe 
that the applicant's ability to function in the Air Force 


environment was significantly impaired and interfered with his 
performance of duty. The applicant was considered at risk for 
worsening symptoms in the context of further military service, 
and it was recommended that he be administratively separated 
from the Air Force. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The MDES was 
established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, and by 
law, under Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), only offer 
compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries 
which specifically rendered a member unfit for continued active 
service and were the cause for career termination; and then only 
for the degree of impairment present at the time of separation 
and not based on future changes. Although the applicant's 
service records reflect that he received episodic evaluation and 
treatment for a number of medical conditions during his military 
service, e.g., olecranon bursitis, sore throat, headaches, flank 
pain, right hand tingling, and gastroenteritis, which he 
implicitly attributes to the exposures during military service 
(Anthrax vaccine and hazardous materials), the Medical 
Consultant opines the evidence is insufficient to reflect that 
either of the aforementioned reported clinical diagnoses, either 
individually or collectively, interfered with his ability to 
perform military service to a degree that warranted processing 
through the MDES for a medical separation or retirement. 

 

Attention is directed to governing authority, under Cause and 
Effect Relationship, which may further explain the likely reason 
the applicant may not warrant a medical separation or 
retirement, which reads, "Regardless of the presence of illness 
or injury, inadequate performance of duty, by itself, shall not 
be considered as evidence of unfitness due to physical 
disability unless it is established that there is a cause and 
effect relationship between the two factors." The Medical 
Consultant found no cause and effect relationship between the 
applicant's collection of symptoms experienced during military 
service, and which he retrospectively attributes to exposures 
during military service, and a more appropriate medical reason 
for career termination. 

 

The Consultant acknowledges that the applicant is likely to 
receive service connection and compensation by the Department of 
Veterans Affairs (DVA) for conditions considered to have 
occurred incident to or during his period of military service. 
However, the applicant is advised that the DVA, operating under 
a different set of laws with a different purpose (Title 38, 
U.S.C.), is authorized to offer compensation for any medical 
condition determined service incurred or aggravated, without 
regard to [and independent of] its proven or demonstrated impact 
upon a member's retainability, fitness to serve, or narrative 
reason for release from military service. The DVA is also 


empowered to conduct periodic re-evaluations for the purpose of 
adjusting the disability rating (increase or decrease) as the 
level of impairment from a given medical condition may vary 
(worsen or improve) over the veteran's lifetime. 

 

With respect to the narrative reason for the applicant's 
discharge, the Medical Consultant has no evidence, e.g., 
psychiatric evaluations or objective personality assessments, to 
refute this diagnosis of Personality Disorder as inaccurate or 
inappropriate; notwithstanding the compelling evidence that the 
applicant likely displayed no such findings impacting duty 
during his preceding service (1999-2004) in the fuels career 
field, as reflected in his EPRs. The Consultant also does not 
have the medical documentation of the applicant's reported 
mental health care x 3 months, nor any of the accompanying 
clinical behavioral history that resulted in his administrative 
separation upon which to offer any useful comment. Therefore, 
the Consultant opines the applicant has not met the burden of 
proof of an error or injustice that warrants the desired change 
of the record. 

 

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluation were forwarded to the 
applicant on 28 Oct 11 for review and comment within 30 days. 
As of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit E). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendation 
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and the BCMR 
Medical Consultant, 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 basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought in this application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 


 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-01199 in Executive Session on 5 January 2012, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Mar 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 11 Jul 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, 

 dated 20 Oct 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Oct 11. 

 

 

 

 

 Chair