RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00084
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation (Unsuitability – Character 
and Behavior Disorders) be changed to a disability separation or 
permanent disability retirement.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He did not receive a mental health evaluation or mental health 
treatment prior to his discharge.  While in the service he was 
diagnosed by competent medical authority as having a passive-
aggressive personality - the same condition he is being treated 
for now as well as being hospitalized in a psychiatric inpatient 
unit.

In support of the applicant’s appeal, he provides Congressional 
documentation, medical documentation, and documents extracted 
from his military personnel records.

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

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 30 November 
1972.

The applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to 
recommend his discharge from the Air Force under the provisions 
of AFM 39-12.  The specific reason is the applicant had been 
diagnosed by competent medical authority as having a character 
and behavior disorder best classified as passive aggressive 
personality.  This disorder had manifested itself in the 
applicant being absent without leave (AWOL) from 6 May 
1973 through 29 May 1973 and constant complaints of being ill 
when in fact no ailment could be found.



He was advised of his rights in this matter and acknowledged 
receipt of the notification.  His case was heard by an 
evaluation officer who indicated the applicant was unsuited for 
further military service for the following reasons:  1) The 
applicant’s inability to adjust and conform to military 
standards; 2) his willingness to be AWOL and neglect his 
assigned duties; 3) his failure to obey lawful orders from 
superiors; 4) his lack of interest to participate and progress 
in the upgrade and OJT programs; 5) the applicant’s desire to 
not remain in the Air Force nor did he apply himself for 
advancement under any career field; and 6) his passive 
aggressive personality as determined by the medical profession 
which makes his behavior unreliable and possibly dangerous.  The 
evaluation officer recommended the applicant be separated for 
character behavior disorder best classified as passive 
aggressive personality.

In a legal review of the case file, the staff judge advocate 
found the case legally sufficient and recommended discharge.  
The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and 
directed a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  The 
applicant was discharged on 15 October 1973.  He served 10 
months and 16 days on active duty

On 11 June 1985, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) 
considered and denied the applicant’s request that his general 
discharge be upgraded to honorable and his narrative reason for 
discharge (Unsuitability – Character and Behavior Disorders) be 
changed.  The board concluded that the discharge was consistent 
with the procedural and substantive requirements of the 
discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the 
discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full 
administrative due process (Exhibit B).

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  DPSOR states the applicant did 
not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices 
that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no facts 
warranting a change to his reason and authority.  Based on the 
documentation on file in the master personnel records the 
discharge to include the applicant’s reason and authority was 
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of 
the discharge Manuel and was within the discretion of the 
discharge authority.

The DPSOR complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________
_





APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states he believes the office of primary 
responsibility has not been briefed on personality disorders.  
He provides information on personality disorders for the Board’s 
review.

The applicant’s complete response, 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 an 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 that his narrative reason for separation was contrary to 
the provisions of the governing regulation.  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.

________________________________________________________________
_

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-00084 in Executive Session on 12 September 2013, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 November 2012, w/atchs.
  Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Available Master Personnel Records.
  Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 26 March 2013.
  Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 April 2013.
  Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 September 2013, 
w/atchs.







3