RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:                   DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03637	
		   		    COUNSEL:  NONE
   	   			    HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation of “Personality Disorder” 
and corresponding separation code “JFX” be changed to a medical 
retirement.   

________________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have been medically retired for a bipolar disorder.  

He was recently diagnosed with a bipolar disorder.  The 
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rated his condition at 
70 percent.  

He only signed the recommendation for discharge for personality 
disorder because he trusted the doctor’s diagnosis.  At the 
time, he thought it was the right diagnosis but now has evidence 
to support he has a bipolar disorder.  

The military has a history of discharging veterans with a 
diagnosis of personality disorder.  Consequently, veterans are 
unable to get the proper treatment.  He is one of these veterans 
and requests his records be corrected.  

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, copies of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or 
Discharge from Active Duty; medical information, DVA rating 
decision and discharge proceedings.

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

________________________________________________________________ 

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 30 Mar 2009, the applicant entered active duty.

On 5 Jan 2010, the applicant’s commander notified him that he 
was recommending that he be discharged from the Air Force for 
conditions that interfere with military service, specifically,  
mental disorders - personality disorders In Accordance With 
(IAW) AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen.  The 
specific reasons include the applicant’s diagnosis with an 
adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and 
conduct and borderline personality disorder.  The severity of 
the personality disorder affected the applicant’s ability to 
function effectively in the military environment.  Although he 
denied any suicidal or homicidal ideations, he had a history of 
recurrent suicidal ideations and threats.  Due to the 
personality disorder, he was recommended for permanent 
disqualification from weapon bearing, Personnel Reliability 
Program (PRP), Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) and 
other sensitive duty access.  Other factors considered in the 
discharge recommendation include a Letter of Counseling (LOC) 
for reporting late for duty and failure to go to his appointed 
place of duty and a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for damage to 
government property.    
  
On 5 Jan 2010, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
discharge notification.  

On 8 Jan 2010, he consulted counsel and waived his right to 
submit statements in his own behalf. 

On 11 Jan 2010, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) found the case 
legally sufficient to support the separation.  

On 12 Jan 2010, the separation authority approved the 
recommendation for discharge.  

On 20 Jan 2010, the applicant was honorably discharged with a 
narrative reason for separation of “Personality Disorder” and a 
corresponding separation code of “JFX.”

He served 9 months and 21 days on active duty.

_____________________________________________________________ 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial.  Based on the documentation on 
file in the applicant’s master personnel records, the discharge 
to include his narrative reason for separation was consistent 
with the procedural and substantive requirements of the 
discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the 
discharge authority.  The administrative discharge package 
clearly indicates the applicant was counseled on numerous 
occasions regarding his conduct and was afforded an opportunity 
to meet Air Force standards prior to the initiation of his 
discharge.  The applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment 
disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions, conduct and 
borderline personality disorder.  The medical report indicates 
the applicant demonstrated unstable mood patterns, repeated 
relationship problems, anger outbursts, acting out behaviors, 
inpatient hospitalization and verbalized suicidal threats when 
under stress.  The applicant did not have a psychiatric disorder 
that required action through medical channels, his ongoing work 
and personal problems strongly suggest he was temperamentally 
and emotionally unsuited for continued service in the Air Force.  

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
 
The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The Medical 
Consultant is aware and sensitive to allegations of diagnostic 
errors [particularly mental health conditions] which result in 
administrative discharge which are followed by service 
connection by the DVA for a completely different diagnosis.  
Policies have been established for use within the DVA to address 
diagnostic changes in the implicit effort to render the most 
appropriate disability rating decisions.  

The diagnostic nomenclature assigned to a given set of 
psychiatric symptoms as reported by a patient at a given point 
in time may change over time or may be reported differently at a 
subsequent point in time.  Therefore, with disclosure of a 
different clinical history or set of symptoms [as noted in the 
distinctly different symptoms reported in the civilian 
evaluation of 4 Mar 2013, when compared with the supplied 
service evidence] a new mental health provider may legitimately 
reach different diagnostic conclusions.  Furthermore, a change 
in diagnosis may occur following a greater period of observation 
and treatment; individuals may also experience symptoms that 
concurrently overlap one or more other clinical diagnosis.  Yet 
two or more mental disorders may even co-exist as co-morbid 
mental disorders Axis I and/or Axis II diagnosis, often times 
making it difficult to attempt to separate the two due to their 
close association or shared clinical features.  Thus, the fact 
that the applicant was given a different diagnosis by a civilian 
provider three years after leaving military service and has been 
granted DVA compensation is insufficient to invalidate the 
appropriateness of the diagnostic conclusions reached by equally 
competent military mental health authorities who were at least 
as familiar with the applicant’s observed pattern of behavior at 
the “snap-shot” time of his military service.  

The Medical Consultant is keenly aware of the shared clinical 
features of borderline personality disorder and bipolar disorder 
and the vulnerability for error in making either diagnosis by 
equally competent clinicians at a given time.  Given the fact 
that the applicant has a family history of bipolar disorder and 
considering its known familial/genetic predisposition, the 
Medical Consultant opines the odds lean towards a condition 
which was possibly present but not fully clinically manifested 
at the time of his military service.  However, given the 
relative short interval of military service from the applicant’s 
entry into military service to his first documented 
manifestation of a negative pattern of behavior, it is difficult 
to now presume that his medical condition was service incurred 
or permanently aggravated by military service despite the 
decision of the DVA.  

The Board is reminded that, operating under Title 38, the DVA is 
authorized to offer compensation for any medical diagnosis that 
it independently finds a nexus with military service without 
regard to its proven or demonstrated impact upon a service 
member’s fitness to serve, retainability, the narrative reason 
for release from military service or the intervening period 
since release from service, in this case over three years after 
his release from military service.  The action by the DVA does 
not automatically rule erroneous or invalidate any clinical 
decision making based upon presenting signs and symptoms during 
a service interview and the resultant conclusions reached by 
competent medical authorities; particularly in the fluid and 
evolving range of behavior changes that may occur over time.  
This is the reason why an individual may be legitimately 
separated from military service for one reason but sometime 
thereafter receive a compensation rating from the DVA for a 
medical condition that was either or not diagnosed or not 
militarily unfitting at the time of release from military 
service.  

Nevertheless, in view of the applicant’s co-morbid service 
diagnosis of adjustment disorder, the Board may elect to remove 
the lifelong label of “Personality Disorder” with consideration 
of a change to “Secretarial Authority.”  

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit 
D. 

_____________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He disagrees with the decision to deny his application and 
provides new evidence to support his request, to include his 
hospitalization records from when he was in the Air Force and a 
complete diagnosis from his civilian psychiatrist. 

He was admitted to Trinity Hospital in Minot, ND where he was 
diagnosed with Axis I Major Depressive Disorder and Axis 
2 Narcissistic Personality Disorder traits which were not 
included in his official Air Force documentation.  These records 
should have been included since his prescription for Zoloft was 
increased.  His medical provider admitted that he had difficulty 
making a diagnosis and he believes this new evidence proves that 
the Air Force diagnosis was incorrect.  Although he wasn’t 
diagnosed with bipolar disorder at the time, he was at least 
diagnosed with major depressive disorder.  He believes this new 
evidence proves that he should have been medically discharged or 
retired. 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, 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 warranting 
changing his discharge to a medical retirement or medical 
separation.  We took notice of the applicant's complete 
submission in judging the merits of the case and do not find 
that it supports a determination that the applicant was 
improperly separated from active duty in 2010.  The applicant 
has provided no evidence which, in our opinion, successfully 
refutes the assessment of his case by the BCMR Medical 
Consultant.  Therefore, we agree with the recommendation of the 
BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his opinion as our findings in 
this case.  In view of the above, we find no basis to favorably 
consider this portion of the applicant’s request.
  
4.  Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has 
been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice to 
warrant changing the applicant’s narrative reason for 
separation.  After carefully reviewing the evidence of record, 
it appears that his separation was proper and in compliance with 
the appropriate regulations in effect at the time.  However, in 
view of the applicant’s co-morbid service diagnosis of 
adjustment disorder and to prevent a further burden with the 
stigma associated with the narrative reason of “Personality 
Disorder” we find it is in the interest of justice to change it 
to "Secretarial Authority" with the corresponding separation 
code of "JFF."  Accordingly, we recommend his record be 
corrected to the extent indicated below.

________________________________________________________________ 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that at the 
time of his discharge on 20 Jan 2010, the narrative reason for 
his separation was Secretarial Authority with a separation code 
of “JFF.”

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-
2013-03637 in Executive Session on 27 May 2014, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:     

 , Panel Chair
 , Member
 , Member

All members voted to correct the records as recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Jun 2013, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 13 Sep 2013.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, 16 Jan 2014. 
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 22 Jan 2014.  
     Exhibit F.  E-mail, Applicant, dated 13 Feb 2014.  




 
                                   Panel Chair