RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:                   DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04547	
	   	   		    COUNSEL:  NONE
    	   			    HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was never given an official diagnosis of personality 
disorder.  He has gone through two divorces and spent nearly 
$100,000 in legal fees and is currently unable to see his 
children due to his ex-wives false beliefs regarding the reason 
for his separation.

He did not know it was possible to have his discharge reviewed 
until recently.  The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) 
agreed he was not diagnosed but still refused to change the 
reason for separation.

In support of his request, he provides copies of his DD Form 
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; 
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) statement of the case, 
SAF/MRBR letter and a letter of support.

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

________________________________________________________________ 

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 30 Dec 96, the applicant entered active duty.

According to his DD Form 214, he was honorably discharged on   
25 Jan 99 with a narrative reason for separation of “Personality 
Disorder” and a corresponding separation code of “JFX.”

He served two years, one month and four days on active duty.

On 24 Feb 12, the AFDRB denied the applicant’s request for a 
change of his discharge reason.  The AFDRB was unable to find 
any documentation regarding the discharge.  Due to a lack of 
evidence and supporting documentation to explain the discharge, 
the AFDRB relied on the presumption of regularity and found the 
narrative reason for discharge appropriate.  The AFDRB stated 
that if the applicant provided additional documentation to 
substantiate his issue, he should consider exercising his right 
to make a personal appearance.  The AFDRB concluded the 
discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive 
requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the 
discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was 
provided full administrative due process.

________________________________________________________________ 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  The applicant failed to submit 
any evidence that an error or injustice occurred in the 
processing of the discharge action.  The discharge to include 
the characterization of service, Separation Program Designator 
(SPD) code and narrative reason for separation are consistent 
with the procedural and substantive requirements of the 
discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the 
discharge authority.

There is insufficient evidence contained within the applicant’s 
military records to confirm the circumstances and facts 
surrounding his discharge.  Absent the documentation, there is a 
presumption of regularity in which the applicant was afforded 
due process.  The discharge was consistent with the procedural 
and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  In 
Accordance With (IAW) AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of 
Airmen, para 5.11.9, a recommendation for discharge under this 
provision must be supported by a report of evaluation by a 
psychiatrist or clinical psychologist that confirms the 
diagnosis of a disorder as contained in the Diagnostic and 
Statistical Manual of Medical Disorders.  Therefore, it is 
DPSOR’s opinion that the applicant’s commander would have 
received such a diagnosis in order to begin discharge 
proceedings and provided this information to the discharge 
authority for final decision.  Furthermore, in keeping with the 
mandatory discharge processing procedures, the base legal office 
reviewed the discharge and found it legally sufficient.

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

_____________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He is currently being seen by yet another psychologist whose 
opinion is that he was never diagnosed with a personality 
disorder.  He was never given any tests for a personality 
disorder while in the military nor was he given an opportunity 
to offer any statement and/or defense before being discharged.  
Like tens of thousands of other service members, his discharge 
was done improperly and due to this false discharge, he is now 
divorced and over $100,000 in debt and is not able to see his 
children on a regular basis.  A psychologist cannot just 
recommend a discharge due to a “feeling” it must be done with 
actual testing which was never done.  

In further support of his request, he provides a mental health 
evaluation report, a medical progress report and statement of 
the case from the DVA.  

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
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.  While the 
applicant argues that his discharge was improper, he has not 
provided sufficient evidence that the actions taken to affect 
his discharge and narrative reason for separation were improper 
or contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations in 
effect at the time.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
and adopt its 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 
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-
2013-04547 in Executive Session on 8 Jul 2014, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:     

      , Panel Chair
      , Member
      , Member

The following documentary evidence in Docket Number BC-2013-
04547 was considered: 

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Sep 13, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 31 Dec 13.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 24 Jan 14.  
     Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Feb 14, w/atchs. 


                                   

 Panel Chair