RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02955 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her narrative reason for separation be changed from personality 
disorder to medical discharge. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. She was discharged for a diagnosed personality disorder 
however, at the time of the diagnosis she was receiving medical 
treatment from Mental Health and was prescribed prescriptions. 

 

2. During the year 2010, she was seeing multiple mental health 
doctors and was diagnosed with depression which contributed to 
her personality disorder. She was also diagnosed with cluster B 
personality disorder. She was prescribed Citaiopram, 
Sertraline, Topiramate, Bupropion, and Celexa for her 
personality disorder. Her reason for separation should be 
“Medical.” 

 

In support of her request, the applicant submits a copy of her 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, medical records and Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) 
disability compensation approval letter with attachments. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 28 July 2009 
and was progressively promoted to the rank of Airman First Class 
(A1C), E-3 with an effective date of rank of 25 September 2009. 

 

On 5 January 2011 the applicant was notified by her commander 
that he was recommending her for discharge from the Air Force 
under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 Military Retirements and 
Separations and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of 
Airmen, Chapter 5, Section 5B, Involuntary Convenience of the 
Government, paragraph 5.11, Conditions that Interfere with 
Military Service, paragraph 5.11.9.1, under Mental Disorders. 
The specific reason for this action was on 18 November 2010; the 


applicant was given a psychological evaluation by a licensed 
psychologist and was diagnosed as having a personality disorder. 
The psychologist determined that although some members can serve 
in the military with a personality disorder, the applicant’s 
disorder was of a severity that success was not deemed likely 
and her deployability was questionable. The psychologist stated 
that the diagnosis of a personality disorder of this severity is 
incompatible with military service. 

 

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of 
discharge and was advised of her right to consult counsel and 
submit a statement to the commander for consideration. She 
opted to consult counsel and submit a statement on her behalf. 

 

Subsequent to the file being found legally sufficient the 
discharge authority approved the recommendation and directed the 
applicant be separated with an honorable discharge without 
probation and rehabilitation. The applicant was discharged on 
26 January 2011, with a narrative reason for separation of 
“Personality Disorder” and a separation code of “JFX.” She was 
credited with 1 year, 5 months and 29 days of active duty 
service. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states; although they are 
pleased the applicant is apparently succeeding and coping well 
in her civilian capacity, it does not change the basis for which 
she was discharged from the Air Force. The military environment 
is unique and stressors encountered in such an environment may 
not appear or surface when removed from the military 
environment. The administrative discharge package clearly 
indicated the applicant was counseled on numerous occasions 
regarding her conduct and was afforded an opportunity to meet 
Air Force standards prior to the initiation of her discharge. 

 

Based on the documentation on file in the master military 
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. They found no evidence of an error or injustice in 
the processing of the applicant’s case. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical 
Consultant states an individual may concurrently carry more than 
one mental diagnosis at a given time; referred to as co-morbid 
diagnoses (pl). Secondly, many mental disorders share or 
overlap in symptomatology, e.g., Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood, Bipolar Disorder (hypo manic phase), Alcohol 


Abuse, with associated Depressed Mood. There has been some 
observed variability of the nomenclature assigned to the 
applicant’s symptoms at a given time, but after a greater period 
of observation, care, and analysis, her primary diagnosis (the 
predominant one believed to interfere with the applicant’s 
service) was one which qualified her for the involuntary 
administrative discharge she received. 

 

Although the applicant’s record contains evidence she carried 
the diagnosis of Depression at one or more episodes of care, 
military medical officials determined that it was the 
applicant’s Personality Disorder, and not her co-morbid history 
of Depression that significantly interfered with her 
retainability or suitability for continued service. 
Consequently, she did not qualify for processing of her 
separation through disability channels under provisions of AFI 
36-3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention and Retirement. 
Instead, she was processed under provisions of AFI 36-3208 for a 
mental condition NOT considered a disability. An extract from 
Department of Defense Instruction 1332.38, Physical Disability 
Evaluation, in effect at the time of the applicant’s release 
from service, lists Adjustment Disorder and Personality Disorder 
among conditions of a developmental nature and which are not 
considered a disability. 

 

On the other hand, operating under a different set of laws, 
Title 38 United States Code (U.S.C.), 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 individual proven impact upon a service 
member’s retainability, fitness to serve, or the narrative 
reason for release from military service. This is the reason 
why an individual may be released from military service for one 
reason, and sometime after release from service, receive a 
compensation rating for a condition that was found service 
connected, but was not individually unfitting for military 
service. Thus, the fact that the DVA awarded the applicant 
compensation for the diagnosis of Depressive Disorder is not a 
justification for a retroactive unfit finding and the award of a 
disability rating for the same; as it does not invalidate the 
preponderance of clinical evidence that it was the applicant’s 
non-compensable and non-ratable Personality Disorder that 
significantly interfered with her retainability and which 
rendered her unsuitable for military service. The BCMR Medical 
Consultant opines the applicant has not met the burden of proof 
of error or injustice that warrants the desired change of record 
and recommends denial of the applicant’s petition for a change 
in the narrative reason for discharge from a Personality 
Disorder to a Medical Discharge. 

 

The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at 
Exhibit E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 


 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 10 November 2011 for review and comment within 
30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been 
received by this office. 

 

A copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation was forwarded 
to the applicant on 26 March 2012, for review and comment within 
30 days (Exhibit F). As of this date, no response has been 
received by this office. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 AFPC/DPSOS 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 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-2011-02955 in Executive Session on 8 May 2012, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

, Member 


 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 July 2011, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 13 October 2011. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 November 2011. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 
26 March 2012. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 26 March 2012. 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair