RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00120
			COUNSEL:  NONE
	 		HEARING DESIRED:  NO		

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her involuntary discharge (under honorable conditions) for personality disorder be changed to a medical separation for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).   

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She has PTSD but was misdiagnosed at the time of her discharge with a personality disorder.    

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty on 28 Mar 1983.    

According to her Air Force Form 438, Medical Care-Third Party Liability Notification, dated 9 May 1984, on 23 Feb 1984, the applicant was admitted to the Eglin AFB, FL, hospital’s mental health unit for treatment and evaluation after reporting she had been sexually assaulted.    

On 17 Apr 1984, her squadron commander notified the applicant of administrative discharge action for adjustment disorder with mixed disturbances of emotions and conduct and mixed personality disorders with borderline histrionic and dependent features in accordance with Air Force Regulation 39-10, Separation Upon Expiration of Term of Service, for Convenience of the Government, Minority, Dependency and Hardship.  After consulting with legal counsel, the applicant waived her right to submit statements in her own behalf.

On 27 Apr 1984, the staff judge advocate found the case file legally sufficient and recommended the applicant be discharged.  

On 3 May 1984, she was honorably discharged with a narrative reason for separation of “Conditions that Interfere with Military Service-Not Disability-Personality Disorder.”  

The applicant served on active duty for one year, one month and six days.

The DVA has rated the applicant for 100 percent service connected disability for PTSD with polysubstance dependence.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  DPSOR states that they found insufficient medical evidence in the applicant’s military personnel record to confirm the circumstances and facts surrounding the applicant’s discharge.  Absent the documentation, there is a presumption of regularity in which the applicant was afforded due process and the discharge was consistent with procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Previous counseling efforts by her military supervisors as well as mental health and psychiatric counseling strongly indicated that the applicant was not a proper subject for probation and rehabilitation.  DPSOR finds no error or injustice and states that based on the documentation in her personnel records; the discharge and narrative reason for separation were consistent with the procedural requirements at that time and within the discretion of the discharge authority.  

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 1 Apr 2013 for review and comment within          30 days (Exhibit D).  To date, a response has not been received.  

________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The Medical Consultant states that while the evidence is not supportive of a medical retirement from 1984 due to PTSD, the Medical Consultant opines the record is sufficient to change the narrative reason for discharge to “Secretarial Authority,” as a matter of justice, and not to further burden the applicant with the stigma of a personality disorder.  There is evidence that the applicant participated in a second hospitalization at Eglin AFB, FL, on or about 24 Feb 1984, which lasted approximately 2 months.  However, there is no evidence that the military clinicians conducting the mental health evaluation included any discussion or consideration of the applicant’s alleged military sexual trauma as a possible direct or contributory cause of her mental diagnosis, but instead issued the diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder and Personality Disorder, based at least in part on observation and psychological testing. The proximity of the date of the projected hospital discharge and the actual military discharge notification suggests no intent to retain the applicant for further evaluation and rehabilitation or to consider if her medical condition qualified for processing through the Disability Evaluation System (DES).  

The Medical Consultant concedes it appears counterintuitive to allow a discharge to stand for an individual given a non-compensable mental health diagnosis, who within months following an alleged rape and days following projected discharge from the hospital, was administratively separated from military service.  However, through the extensive passage of time, over two decades, the Medical Consultant finds it virtually impossible to definitively prove that an error or injustice occurred at the time of the applicant’s release from service.  Moreover, the apparent delayed clinical manifestations, or delayed reporting, of her illness, as noted at her subsequent DVA examinations in 2005 and thereafter is not determinative that PTSD was a diagnosable and unfitting medical condition at the time of her release from service.  

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 16 Oct 2013 for review and comment within  30 days (Exhibit F).  To date, a response has not been received.  

________________________________________________________________

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 to warrant changing her discharge to a medical separation for PTSD.  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 she should be medically separated.   Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden of proof that she has been the victim of an error or injustice.

4.  Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice warranting partial relief.  In this respect, we note that the BCMR Medical consultant states that in addition to a Personality Disorder, the applicant was also diagnosed with an Axis I Adjustment Disorder.  The Medical Consultant states that this is relevant since her co-morbid Adjustment Disorder now has its own Separation Program Designator (SPD) code and would likely have a less adverse impact upon her future social and occupational opportunities where presentation of a DD Form 214 is requested.  For this reason and to prevent a further burden with the stigma associated with a Personality Disorder, he recommends that her narrative reason for separation be changed to Secretarial Authority as a matter of injustice.  Accordingly, we agree with the Medical Consultant's assessment and recommendation and believe it would be an injustice for the applicant to continue to suffer the adverse effects of her narrative reason for separation.  Therefore, we recommend her record be corrected to show her narrative reason for separation as "Secretarial Authority."

_________________________________________________________________

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 her 3 May 1984 discharge, the narrative reason for her separation was Secretarial Authority with a separation code of “JFF.” 
________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number   BC-2012-00120 in Executive Session on 17 Sept 2013 and on 20 Nov 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member



The following pertinent evidence was considered in Docket Number BC-2012-00120:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Nov 2011.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Military Service Records
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 20 Mar 2013. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Apr 2013. 
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 15 Oct 2013.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 16 Oct 2013.  




 
Panel Chair