RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00184
			COUNSEL:  NONE
			HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her type of separation be changed from “Discharged” to 
“Released from Active Duty.”

2.  Her narrative reason for separation of “Personality 
Disorder,” and separation code of “JFX,” be changed to “Early 
Release to Attend School, and “KCE.”

3.  Her Reentry (RE) code of 2C which denotes “Involuntarily 
separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation 
without characterization of service” be changed to 1J which 
denotes “Eligible to reenlist, but elects separation.”

4.  Her AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) (AB thru 
TSgt), rendered for the period 13 Aug 95 through 31 Jul 96, be 
declared void and removed from her records or in the alternative 
be upgraded to an overall “4” rating. 

5.  All references to her thoughts of suicide ideations be 
removed from her personnel military and medical records.

6.  Her involuntary discharge documents be removed from her 
personnel file.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In a 25-page letter, the applicant summarizes her military 
career and references many instances of improprieties and 
harassment against women in the military.  

She states that she was psychologically abused and harassed by 
her first sergeant and betrayed by her superiors.  

She resented the unfair treatment and exposure to violent men 
and requested an early separation, but her request was denied.  

Her chain of command used the mental health clinic as a tool of 
persecution.  She was inaccurately diagnosed with paranoia 
because she became distrustful of people.

Having “Personality Disorder” on her DD Form 214, Certificate of 
Release or Discharge from Active Duty, for the past 16 years is 
unjust and labels her for life as potential employers will 
question her military service.  

According to AFI 44-109, Mental Health, Confidentiality, and 
Military Law, references to a member’s mental health should not 
be contained in their military record rather they should be kept 
separately at the mental health clinic.

She has been discriminated against by the US Postal Service 
because of what was on her DD Form 214.

In support of her request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, a statement from her husband, copies of her DD Form 
214, college transcripts, military personnel/medical records, 
and various other documents associated with her request.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 13 May 91, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force 
for a period of six years.

On 7 Aug 96, the applicant was notified by her squadron 
commander that he was recommending her discharge from the Air 
Force for a mental disorder.  The reason for the proposed action 
was the applicant was diagnosed with a Personality Disorder that 
rendered her unfit for duty.  Specifically, on or about 16 Jul 
96, the applicant was evaluated by a Staff Clinical 
Psychologist, and was diagnosed as having an Adjustment Disorder 
with Depressed Mood and a Personality Disorder, Not Otherwise 
Specified (NOS) (Avoidant & Paranoid).  It was determined that 
the condition was of such severity that her ability to function 
effectively in the military environment was significantly 
impaired.  

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of 
discharge and, after consulting with legal counsel, waived her 
rights to submit statements in her own behalf.  

The base legal office found the case legally sufficient to 
support the separation, and the discharge authority directed an 
honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

On 16 Aug 96, the applicant was discharged under the provisions 
of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for 
(Personality Disorder) with service characterized as honorable.  
She served five years, three months, and three days of active 
duty.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
change her type of separation, narrative reason for separation 
and separation code.

DPSOR states that on or about 16 Jul 96, the applicant talked of 
killing herself rather than living in a dorm, and agreed to the 
suggestion that she see a mental health provider.  She was 
evaluated and diagnosed by a clinical psychologist with an 
Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood and Personality Disorder 
NOS (Avoidant & Paranoid).  The applicant’s disorders were 
determined to be severe enough to impair her ability to function 
effectively in a military environment.  In accordance with AFI 
36-3208, paragraph 5.11.1, a recommendation for discharge must 
be supported by a report of evaluation by a psychiatrist or 
clinical psychologist that confirms the diagnosis of a mental 
disorder.  

Although the applicant is apparently succeeding and coping well 
in her civilian capacity, it does not change the basis for which 
she was discharged from the Air Force.  The military environment 
is unique and stressors encountered in such an environment may 
not appear or surface when removed from the military 
environment.

DPSOR states that based on the documentation on file in the 
master personnel records, the discharge to include her narrative 
reason for separation, type of discharge, and separation code 
was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements 
of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the 
discharge authority.  The applicant did not submit any evidence 
or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the 
discharge processing.

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
change her RE code to 1J.  DPSOA states the applicant’s RE code 
“2C” is correct based on her involuntary separation with an 
honorable characterization of service.  The applicant is 
requesting a “1J” RE code; however, the applicant cannot be 
awarded a 1J RE code as she was not selected for reenlistment by 
her commander, since it was her commander who initiated her 
involuntary discharge.

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFMOA/SGHW recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
remove the mental health note and medical note regarding her 
thoughts of suicide ideations from her military medical records.  

SGHW states that the available medical documents reflect 
information that she was seen by mental health providers at 
different times during her career.  Based on the documentation 
provided, a mental health provider believed that she had a 
personality disorder.  The discharge board convened and agreed 
to the administrative separation.  There is no supportive 
documentation to overturn the diagnosis in question from the 
applicant’s medical record; therefore, it should not be removed 
from her record.  

The complete SGHW evaluation is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void 
her 31 Jul 96 referral EPR or change the final rating to a “4.”  

The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation 
Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, 
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports due to her 
separation status from active duty.

DPSID states that the contented EPR has been a matter of record 
for 17 years.  Based on the extensive delay in filing this 
claim, the Air Force no longer has documents on file (i.e. Base 
Personnel Information File, Unfavorable Information File, 
Control Roster, Letter of Reprimand, etc.) which complicates any 
ability to determine the merits of the applicant’s request.  
Therefore, they see no valid reason to remove or modify the 
contested report, and consider the applicant’s request without 
merit. 

The applicant received a referral EPR rendered for the period 
13 Aug 95 through 31 Jul 96 after failing to attend Airmen 
Leadership School (ALS).  The applicant has not provided any 
substantial evidence which indicates the evaluators of the 
contested report wrote an unfair or impartial EPR and only 
presented her view of events and of others outside the rating 
chain.  The applicant’s commander informed her to attend ALS, 
and she stated that she would rather kill herself then attend 
and have to relocate back to the dormitories.

DPSID points out the EPR in question makes no mention of the 
pending administrative discharge but rather the offense of not 
meeting her training requirements by refusing to attend ALS and 
accepting higher responsibilities.

DPSID states that the inclusion of the referral comment on the 
EPR was appropriate and within the evaluator’s authority to 
document.  Based on the evidence provided, or lack thereof, 
DPSID concludes that the mention of failing to meet training 
requirements on the contested EPR was proper and in accordance 
with Air Force policies and procedures.

Regarding the applicant’s request to have the contested report 
modified or changed, the applicant has failed to provide a 
reaccomplished EPR, along with signed memorandums of 
support/justification from her original evaluators at the time.  
AFI 36-2401 states that “If you are requesting a report be 
reaccomplished, you must furnish a substitute report and the 
report must be signed by the original evaluators.”  It also 
states that the ERAB will not consider nor approve requests to 
reaccomplish a report without the applicant furnishing the new 
report.  For this reason alone, the applicant’s request to 
change or modify the contested report should be rejected and the 
EPR remain in her permanent record.

To successfully challenge the validity of an evaluation report, 
it is important to hear from the evaluators—not necessarily for 
support, but at least for clarification/explanation.  An 
evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s 
best judgment at the time it is rendered.  Once a report is 
accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants 
correction or removal from an individual’s record.  The 
applicant has not substantiated that the contested report is 
unjust or inaccurate as written.

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit F.

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
change her narrative reason for separation to “Early Release to 
Attend School.”  DPSOR states that the narrative reason 
“Personality Disorder” is correct.  The applicant did not submit 
any evidence to support her claim, nor has she provided evidence 
of being discriminated against by the US Postal Service.

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit G.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 19 Sep 13, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit 
H).  As of this date, this office has received no response.

________________________________________________________________

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 agree with the opinion and recommendation 
of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt 
their 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 
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 Docket Number    
BC-2013-00184 in Executive Session on 7 Nov 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

Due to the unavailability of XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXX will sign 
as Acting Panel Chair.  The following documentary evidence 
pertaining to Docket Number BC-2013-00184 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Jan 13, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 11 Mar 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 17 Apr 13.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFMOA/SGHW, dated 10 May 13.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 21 Jun 13.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 6 Aug 13.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Sep 13.




					Acting Panel Chair