RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02564 


  COUNSEL: NONE 

 

  HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His general discharge be upgraded to honorable or to a medical 
honorable discharge. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He should have received an honorable discharge or a medical 
honorable discharge. He was misdiagnosed with a personality and 
behavior disorder and has felt the stigma of a less than 
honorable discharge since leaving the military. Even though he 
was gainfully employed with the local Fire Department and 
retired after over 28 years of good service, he did not feel 
comfortable using his status as a veteran to further his 
civilian career with the department. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a written 
statement, copy of his DD Form 214 Report of Separation from 
Active Duty, and an undated counseling evaluation letter from an 
Air Force Chaplain given at the time of his enlistment. 

 

His complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 
20 August 1971. 

 

On 31 October 1973, the commander notified the applicant of his 
intent to discharge him for unsuitability for military service. 
Specifically, the applicant was diagnosed by a competent medical 
authority as having a character and behavior disorder best 
classified as hysterical personality. This condition was stated 
as being basically untreatable in an Air Force setting. 

 

On 31 October 1973, the applicant acknowledged receipt of his 
commander’s intent to discharge him and his right to consult 


counsel and submit a statement(s) on his behalf. He accepted a 
consultation with the appointed evaluation officer. On 
7 November 1973 the evaluating officer counseled the applicant 
of the commander’s recommended action and advised him of his 
right to submit a statement or a rebuttal on his behalf. The 
applicant acknowledged the counseling and waived his right to 
make a statement or submit a rebuttal to the proposed action. 

 

Subsequent to the file being found legally sufficient the 
discharge authority approved the recommendation and directed 
that the applicant be discharged. The applicant was discharged 
effective 16 November 1973 and was credited with 2 years, 2 
months and 27 days of active duty service. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application 
extracted from the applicant’s military personnel records are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force (Exhibits C and D). Accordingly, there is no need 
to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings. 

 

______________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the applicant did 
not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices 
that occurred in the discharge processing. He provided no facts 
warranting a change to his character of service. Based on the 
documentation on file in the master military personnel records, 
the discharge, to include the applicant’s character of service 
is correct and was established in accordance with the procedural 
and substantive requirements of the discharge manual. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant opines the fact that the applicant 
has since been diagnosed with an Anxiety Disorder does not 
invalidate the characterization of his maladaptive pattern of 
behavior demonstrated decades earlier; at which time competent 
medical authority found no evidence of a mental disorder that 
would qualify for processing as a disability under AFM 35-4 Physical Evaluation for retention, Retirement, and Separation. 
Instead it was determined that the applicant’s personality 
rendered him unsuitable for military service under Air Force 
policies (AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, 
Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of the 
Service and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program), as would 
also be the case under current Department of Defense (DoD) 
policies (DoD Instruction 1332.38, Physical Disability 
Evaluation), classifying the applicant’s Hysterical Personality 
under conditions not considered a physical disability. 

 

Although separations due to a Personality Disorder are usually 
characterized as Honorable, the Consultant opines it is likely 


that the discharge authority took into account the applicant’s 
associated minor disciplinary infractions in characterizing his 
service as General, under Honorable conditions. Since it is 
also plausible that the applicant’s manifest disregard for his 
personal appearance and repeated untimely reporting for duty 
were related to his underlying personality and level of 
maturity. The Medical Consultant finds it reasonable to take 
these into consideration as matters in extenuation and 
mitigation; although it does not excuse his behavior. 

 

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends granting partial relief 
by consideration of an upgrade of service characterization to 
honorable due to the possible causal and mitigating relationship 
between some of his disciplinary infractions and his underlying 
personality structure. 

 

The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at 
Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 15 December 2011 for review and comment within 30 
days. As of this date, this office has not received a response. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 and noted the BCMR Medical Consultant’s recommendation. 
However, other than the applicant’s own assertions, he has 
provided no evidence that would lead us to believe the 
characterization of his discharge is in error and not in 
accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements of 
the discharge manual. Therefore we agree with the 
recommendation of AFPC/DPSOS and adopt their rationale as the 
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the 
victim of an error or injustice. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 


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 this application 
BC-2011-02564 in Executive Session on 23 February 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

  Panel Chair 

  Member 

  Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149 dated 27 Jul 2011. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 3 Nov 2011. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR Med Consultant, dated 13 Dec 2011. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Dec 2011. 

 
 

 Panel Chair