DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-01264 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED: YES 

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
    
 
   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
The  narrative  reason  for  separation  on  her  DD  Form  214, 
Certificate of Discharge or Release from Active Duty, be changed 
from  personality  disorder  to  medical  disability  due  to  post 
traumatic  stress  disorder  (PTSD),  bi-polar  disorder,  and 
anxiety.   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
1.  The  recommendation  for  her  discharge  rested  solely  on  the 
diagnosis  of  personality  disorder,  not  otherwise  specified 
(NOS),  per  two  doctors  from  the  mental  health  clinic  at  her 
assigned  base.    She  disagrees  with  the  diagnosis  on  the  basis 
that  she  was  in  the  service  for  a  little  over  three  years  and 
not  once,  while  in  the  Air  Force  or  even  before  she  enlisted, 
did she have any issues nor was she told she had a personality 
issue.  In fact, it was her personality that most people adored 
about her. 
 
2.  It seems as though her diagnosis of personality disorder was 
being blamed on incidences of domestic disputes with her husband 
which occurred at her duty station.  Before these incidences she 
was told she was doing a great job.  She received kudos on her 
character and the great job she was doing from coworkers, family 
members, and friends.  She also received multiple comment cards 
from patients that she served.  It was therefore, quite hard for 
her to process and understand how she was considered a risk to 
herself  as  well  as  her  unit  and  was  told  she  had  to  leave  all 
that she had worked so hard for.   
 
3.  She believes that the unresolved issues with her husband had 
a  significant  impact  on  her  mental  status  and  the  unit  mission 
only because she was not receiving treatment for her illnesses.  
She  credits  her  mother  for  utilizing  her  skills  as  a  case 
manager to link her to appropriate needed services and education 
resources related to family stress. 
 
4.  Since  being  discharged  she  has  received  medical  evidence 
that is contrary to what is on her DD Form 214, therefore, she 
wishes the narrative reason for her separation be changed due to 

the  evidence  of  PTSD,  bipolar  disorder,  and  anxiety.    Unlike 
personality  disorder,  these  disabilities  can  be  treated  with 
medication  as  well  as  therapy.    She  hopes  this  injustice  is 
overturned  as  this  characterization  on  her  record  has  cost  her 
multiple jobs and may possibly affect her Department of Veterans 
Affairs (DVA) priority level and/or ratings.   
 
In  support  of  her  request,  the  applicant  submits  a  personal 
statement  and  copies  of  medical  assessments  from  the  Mental 
Health  and  Substance  Abuse  Service  and  All  that’s  Therapeutic 
agencies.   
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A.  
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  on 
15 January 2008,  served  as  a  pharmacy  journeyman  and  was 
progressively  promoted  to  the  rank  of  senior  airman  (SrA),  E-4 
with an effective date of rank of 29 June 2010.   
 
  1.    On  28  February  2011  the  applicant  was  notified  by  her 
commander  that  she  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, paragraph 5.11.9., Mental Disorders.  The 
specific reason for this action was that on 5 January 2011; the 
applicant  was  given  a  psychological  evaluation  by  the  mental 
health flight commander and a clinical psychology resident.   
 
  2.  The  results  of  the  command-directed  mental  health 
evaluation  described  the  applicant’s  episodes  of  care  for 
“psychological  testing  and  clinical  interviews  on  six  separate 
occasions  between  15  November  and  10  December  2010”  for  the 
purpose of determining “if there were psychological factors that 
rendered  the  applicant  unfit  or  unsuitable  for  continued 
military  service.”    The  evaluation  was  also  conducted  “due  to 
concerns for the safety of the applicant and her child due to a 
repeated history of violent interactions with her husband which 
resulted in significant injury to the applicant.”   
 
  3.  The  evaluators  noted  that  although  the  applicant  was 
cooperative  with  the  evaluation  process,  the  evidence 
accumulated across the testing and interview sessions suggested 
that she had a tendency to deny or minimize her shortcomings and 
externalize  blame  and  responsibility.    The  report  listed  the 
following  sources  of  information  utilized  in  reaching  the 
diagnostic conclusions:  
 
 

a.  multiple clinical interviews with the applicant,  

 

 
2 

b.  two psychological testing sessions,  
c.  review of available medical records,  
d.  review of the applicant’s personnel records, 
e.  collateral  phone  interviews  with  four  members  of  her 
chain of command and two persons chosen by the applicant.   

 
The  applicant’s  psychological  testing  was  considered  valid.  
While  testing  was  not  indicative  of  serious  psychiatric 
conditions  such  as  mood  or  thought  disorder,  clinically 
significant  Cluster  B  personality  traits  consistent  with  both 
narcissistic  personality  disorder  and  histrionic  personality 
disorder were noted.   
 
  4.  The evaluating psychology resident, with concurrence by the 
staff  psychologist,  determined  that  the  applicant  “appears  to 
have  interpersonal  style  and  clinically  significant  personality 
traits  consistent  with  personality  disorder,  not  otherwise 
specified, with marked narcissistic and histrionic traits.”  The 
psychology  resident  further  opined,  “This  constellation  of 
personality  traits  have  resulted  in  clinically  significant 
impairment  in  multiple  important  areas  of  functioning  (e.g., 
occupational, social, and relational)” and that “key aspects of 
this personality structure have been present since adolescence, 
are ego-syntonic for the applicant, and are not highly amenable 
to change.” 
 
  5.  The  evaluators  further  concluded  that  the  applicant  met 
all 
with 
narcissistic and histrionic traits so severe that her ability to 
function in the military environment was significantly impaired.  
They  deemed  the  applicant  unsuitable  for  continued  military 
service  based  on  the  diagnosis  of  Axis  II:  Clinical  disorder, 
according to atch 1 of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of 
Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition.   
 
  6.  Although  not  a  basis  for  discharge,  the  commander  also 
considered the following:   
 
 
a.  On or about 14 October 2010, the applicant failed to go 
to  a  mandatory  formation  at  the  main  pharmacy  at  0730  in 
preparation  for  a  local  mission  exercise.    She  was  not 
accountable until 0745.  As a result, she received a Letter of 
Counseling (LOC) dated 15 October 2010.   
 
b.  On  or  about  10  November  2010,  the  applicant  did  not 
 
report  to  duty  as  scheduled.    Her  supervisor  was  informed  that 
her  father-in-law  called  and  stated  that  she  would  not  be  in 
because  she  was  admitted  to  a  local  hospital.    When  the  first 
sergeant  spoke  with  the  applicant  concerning  this  matter,  he 

requirements 

disorder, 

for 

personality 

NOS, 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
3 

noted  several  discrepancies  in  her  story.    The  applicant  was 
counseled about integrity, failing to go to her appointed place 
of duty on time, and the correct actions to take if she was in a 
situation  that  would  cause  her  to  be  late  reporting  for  duty.  
As  a  result,  she  received  a  Letter  of  Reprimand  (LOR)  dated 
10 November 2012.   
 
7.  On 28 February 2011, 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.   
 
8.  Subsequent to the file being found legally sufficient the 
discharge  authority  approved  the  recommendation  and  directed 
that  the  applicant  be  separated  with  an  honorable  discharge 
without  probation  and  rehabilitation.    The  applicant  was 
discharged  on  14  March  2011,  with  a  narrative  reason  for 
separation  of  “Personality  Disorder”  and  a  separation  code  of 
“JFX.”    She  was  credited  with  3  years,  2  months  and  1  day  of 
active duty service.   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
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 find no evidence of an error or injustice 
that  occurred  during  the  discharge  process.    Based  on  the 
available  evidence  of  record,  it  appears  the  discharge  was 
consistent  with  the  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge 
regulation  and  within  the  commander's  discretionary  authority.  
The  applicant  has  provided  no  evidence,  which  would  lead  us  to 
believe the narrative reason for separation was contrary to the 
provisions of the governing regulation.  We note the applicant’s 
contention that her PTSD, bipolar disorder and anxiety should be 
reflected  as  the  narrative  reason  for  separation  due  to  post-
service  medical  evidence.    However,  the  applicant  has  not 
provided  sufficient  evidence  to  support  these  conditions  were 
the reasons for her discharge. 
Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find 
no  basis  upon  which  to  recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in 
this application.   
 

 

 
4 

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been  shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel 
will  materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s) 
involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
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 
in Executive Session on 10 January 2013, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
 
The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  Docket  Number 
BC-2012-01264 was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 March 2012, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
 
 
 
 
                                     
                                   Panel Chair 
 

  Panel Chair 
  Member 
  Member 

 
 
 

 

 
5