RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02567 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

______________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her narrative reason for separation be changed from “Conditions 
Not a Disability” to “Service Connected Disability - 
30 percent.” 

 

______________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

Shortly after she was discharged she received a service 
connected disability rating due to the nature of her 
separation. 

 

She became aware that she was not receiving entitled benefits 
due to the narrative reason for separation reflected on her DD 
Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

______________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 26 Apr 2000, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air 
Force. 

 

On 5 Dec 2002, her commander notified her he was recommending 
she be discharged under the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Military 
Retirements and Separations and AFI 36-3208, Administrative 
Separation of Airmen. The reason for his proposed action was 
on 27 Sep 2002, she self-referred to the Life Skills Support 
Center and began treatment for depression. Since that time, 
she was seen at the clinic for alcohol abuse and a suicide 
attempt on 4 Oct 2002. Following an additional alcohol related 
incident on 28 Oct 2002, which was accompanied by suicidal 
gestures, the commander requested her medical and mental health 
records be reviewed for determination of possible severe mental 
health conditions underlying her destructive behavior. 

 

In accordance with the commander’s request, a psychologist, 
psychiatrist, and the Chief, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention 
and Treatment (ADAPT), evaluated her records. Based on their 
assessment, she did not have a psychiatric condition that 
required a medical evaluation board or that rendered her 


incompetent for pay and records. However, she did possess a 
Borderline Personality Disorder of such severity as to preclude 
adequate military service. All mental health professionals 
queried recommended that she be expeditiously administratively 
discharged. 

 

On 5 Dec 2002, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
discharge notification. 

 

In an undated letter, the Staff Judge Advocate found the 
discharge legally sufficient. 

 

On 19 Dec 2002, she was honorably discharged. Her narrative 
reason for separation was “Conditions Not a Disability.” 

 

______________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. DPSOR states they found no 
evidence of error or injustice in the processing of the 
applicant’s discharge. Based on the documentation 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. 

 

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical 
Consultant acknowledges that the applicant carried a co-morbid 
diagnosis of Depressive Disorder. However, the mental health 
professional who evaluated her determined that her primary 
diagnosis was Borderline Personality Disorder and that she had 
an S4T profile, secondary to her alcohol abuse and involvement 
in the ADAPT program. Consequently, a determination was made 
that it was her Personality Disorder and alcohol abuse, and not 
her co-morbid diagnosis of Depressive Disorder, which 
significantly interfered with her ability to perform military 
service. 

 

The applicant's factual history shows a recurrent problem with 
alcohol abuse and maladaptive personality traits. She was 
discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, which 
authorizes the involuntary separation of airmen that suffer 
from Mental Disorders that are not considered a disability; 
however that are so severe that the member's ability to 
function effectively in the military environment is 
significantly impaired. 

 

Based on a mental health assessment, it was determined that she 
did not have a psychiatric condition that required a Medical 
Evaluation Board. However, she did possess a Borderline 


Personality Disorder, of such severity as to preclude adequate 
military service. Personality Disorders and Adjustment 
Disorders are not considered compensable disabilities under AFI 
36-3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, and 
Separation or DODI 1332.38, Physical Disability Evaluation. 
Because of the nature of her disorder, her commander felt an 
honorable separation was appropriate acknowledging that it 
precludes the applicant from re-entering the service. 

 

Addressing the applicant’s implicit desire for a medical 
separation, the military Disability Evaluation System (DES), 
established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can 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 occurrences. Again, her 
Personality Disorder is not a compensable disability. 

 

On the other hand, operating under a different set of laws 
(Title 38, U.S.C.), with a different purpose, the Department of 
Veterans Affairs (DVA) is authorized to offer compensation for 
any medical condition determined service incurred, without 
regard to [and independent of] its demonstrated or proven 
impact upon a service member’s retainability, fitness to serve, 
or narrative reason for release from military service. With 
this in mind, Title 38, U.S.C., which governs the DVA 
compensation system, was written to allow awarding compensation 
ratings for any conditions with a nexus with military service. 
This is the reason why an individual can be released from 
active military service for one reason and yet sometime 
thereafter receive a compensation rating from the DVA for a 
medical condition considered service-connected, but which was 
not militarily unfitting during the period of active service. 
The Medical Consultant opines the applicant has not met the 
burden of proof of 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: 

 

Prior to July 2002 she was a model airman, who joined the Air 
Force with the intention of retiring like her father. 

 

Prior to receiving a Letter of Counseling for her participation 
in an unprofessional relationship, she attempted to obtain a 
Humanitarian Assignment to escape a situation that had become 
intolerable. She was sexually harassed by her boss and tried 
to handle it like an adult. Five months after the sexual 
harassment became public; she changed from a model airman to a 
suicidal person with borderline personality disorder. She 
self-mutilated, drank to excess, had anger issues, had no self-
worth, and was depressed. She could not mentally or physically 
endure anymore and wanted to be separated from the military. 

 

She should have been discharged with a service connected 
disability. She suffers from depression, suicidal ideations, 
anger issues, and has a personality disorder, which began 
during her time in the military and has continued after her 
separation. 

 

Her complete response is at 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 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 
recommendations of the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility and the BMCR Medical Consultant and adopt their 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion 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 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-
2012-02567 in Executive Session on 7 Mar 2013, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Jun 2012. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 6 Aug 2012. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 28 Jan 

 2013. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 4 Feb 2013. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Feb 2013. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair