RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00612

					COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her narrative reason for separation (Item 28) on her DD Form 
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty be 
corrected to reflect Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), 
instead of “Personality Disorder.”


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She does not have a personality disorder; she has been given a 
seventy percent rating for her PTSD by the Department of Veteran 
Affairs (DVA) for a Military Sexual Trauma (MST).  She was 
unfairly given a medical narrative without having the 
opportunity to meet a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and it has 
affected her military record.  She has been unjustly deprived of 
several government related job opportunities and been subjected 
to discrimination while pursuing her education.  Had she been 
able to meet an MEB and receive a medical discharge, her 
opportunities would be different.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 
29 Aug 01.

On 5 Jun 03, the applicant’s commander notified her that he was 
recommending her discharge for a condition that interferes with 
military service; specifically, for mental disorders.  The 
reason for the action was that, on 7 Apr 03, the Chief, Mental 
Health Services, diagnosed the applicant with an Adjustment 
Disorder with Depressed Mood, in remission, Occupational 
Problems (job dissatisfaction), Personality Disorder Not 
Otherwise Specified with Borderline, Histrionic, and Dependent 
Features (Principal Reason for Hospitalization/Psychiatric 
Intervention), Status post self-inflicted wrist lacerations, 
healed without complications, and Stressors: Axis II diagnosis, 
and current military duty.

On 5 Jun 03, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
notification of discharge and was advised of her right to 
consult with legal counsel and submit statements on her own 
behalf.

On 23 Jun 03, the discharge authority concurred with the 
commander’s recommendation and directed that she be honorably 
discharged.  

On 26 Jun 03, the applicant was discharged with an honorable 
characterization of service and given a narrative reason for 
separation of Personality Disorder and was credited with one 
year and ten months of active service.   

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of 
primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits 
C, D, and F.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice in the processing of the applicant’s 
discharge, to include the SPD code, the narrative reason for 
separation, and the character of service.  The applicant went 
through a mental health evaluation with a military psychiatrist 
and was diagnosed with Axis I-adjustment disorder with depressed 
mood, in remission, occupational problems (job dissatisfaction), 
Personality Disorder not otherwise specified with Borderline, 
Histrionic, and Dependent Features (Principle reason for 
hospitalization/psychiatric intervention), Status post self-
inflicted wrist lacerations, healed without complications, and 
stressors:  Axis II diagnosis and current military duty.  The 
psychiatrist determined that this personality disorder was so 
severe that it significantly and substantially impaired her 
ability to function effectively in a military environment.  The 
applicant’s mental health evaluation stated the diagnosis did 
not meet retention standards for continued military service. 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s 
request to be granted a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and 
removal of the personality disorder diagnosis.  The applicant 
stated she was provided a rating from the Department of Veteran 
Affairs (DVA) for a diagnosis of PTSD caused by a military 
sexual trauma (MST).  She was evaluated by the Life Skills 
Support Center after her suicidal event and hospitalization.  
The hospitalization was not caused by a medically disqualifying 
psychiatric condition, as described in AFI 48-123, Medical 
Examinations and Standards, or significant severity to warrant 
disability processing or an MEB for continued active duty 
service.  The level of functional impairment was not of 
sufficient degree to adversely affect the applicant’s ability to 
perform her assigned duties necessitating an MEB.  After a 
thorough review of the applicant’s medical documentation, 
reviewing approximately five discussions with mental health life 
skills professions, no mention of a sexual or physical assault 
was identified in documentation provided.  The applicant 
submitted a five page response after she received notification 
from her commander of an impending administrative discharge.  
Again, no mention was made of physical or sexual 
assault/misconduct that occurred during her military service. 
There was no documentation found in the applicant’s submission 
or military records that would support a diagnosis of PTSD 
caused by sexual trauma.  If the diagnosis of PTSD was evident, 
it was not of a sufficient degree to impair the applicant’s 
ability to perform duties commensurate with her rank or grade. 

The DVA is authorized to offer compensation for any medical 
condition with an established nexus with military service, 
without regard to its proven or demonstrated impact upon a 
member’s retain ability, fitness to serve, or the narrative 
reason for release from service.  The DVA may also conduct 
intermittent reevaluations for the purpose of modifying the 
disability rating award as the level of impairment from a given 
medical condition may improve or worsen over the lifetime of the 
veteran.   

A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is 
at Exhibit D.

AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant recommends denial 
indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice that 
incurred when the applicant was administratively discharged from 
the Air Force with a narrative reason of Personality Disorder.  
There is no record of PTSD in the applicant’s medical records 
supplied for this case nor is there a description of a traumatic 
experience aside from the events that led to her psychiatric 
hospitalization in Dec 2002.  It was observed that the 
applicant’s report of symptom etiology subsequent to inpatient 
treatment was always focused on her work dissatisfaction, with 
no reference to a trigger event in the form of a traumatic 
experience.  The applicant has contended that she was discharged 
for a mental health condition without being permitted to first 
having an MEB.  IAW DoD Instruction 1332.38 Disability 
Evaluation System, (in effect at the time of the applicant’s 
discharge) in order for the applicant to have been entered into 
the disability evaluation system (DES) she must have met 
criteria for such a referral as listed in Enclosure 3 Part 2 of 
the instruction.  First and foremost, she must have been 
determined to suffer from a disability.  Enclosure 2 paragraph 
1.25. of the instruction defines a physical disability as “Any 
impairment due to disease or injury, regardless of degree, that 
reduces or prevents an individual's actual or presumed ability 
to engage in gainful employment or normal activity.  The term 
‘physical disability’ includes mental disease, but not such 
inherent defects as behavioral disorders, adjustment disorders, 
personality disorders, and primary mental deficiencies.”  The 
applicant’s service treatment record contains diagnoses of a 
personality disorder and adjustment disorder from the start of 
treatment through termination.  An independent review, conducted 
at the applicant’s request, verified the appropriateness of the 
recommendations made by her treating psychiatrist.  

The Military Department operates under Title 10, United States 
Code (U.S.C.), and must base its actions upon evidence available 
at the “snap shot” in time of final military disposition.  The 
medical records reviewed for this case, which document the 
applicant’s functioning during military service and at the time 
of discharge, do not support the presence of a mental health 
condition meeting criteria for initiating DES processing as 
listed in DoD Instruction 1332.38.  Her mental health diagnoses 
at discharge were not eligible for MEB review as described in 
AFI 48-123, Medical Examinations and Standards, but were 
potentially unsuitable for continued military service, making 
her vulnerable to administrative separation.  

The DVA operates under a different set of laws (Title 38, 
U.S.C.), with a different purpose, and is authorized to offer 
service connection and compensation for any medical condition 
for which it has established a nexus with military service 
regardless of the narrative reason for separation or the length 
of time transpired since discharge.  The DVA is also able to 
conduct periodic reassessments of a veteran’s medical condition 
and adjust its ratings based on the progression of a disability.  
In keeping with this mission, the applicant reported receiving a 
compensable rating for a mental health condition despite the 
passage of nearly a decade following discharge from military 
service.  In sum, a post-service VA rating does not equate to a 
Military Department conclusion that a Service member required a 
DES processing at the time of discharge.

A complete copy of the AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant 
evaluation is at Exhibit F. 


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 30 Oct 14 and 15 Jun 15, for review and comment 
within 30 days (Exhibits E and G).  As of this date, no response 
has been received by this office.



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 agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
(OPR) and the AFBCMR Medical and Clinical Psychology Consultants 
and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find 
no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

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 issues involved.  
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered.


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material 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-2014-00612 in Executive Session on 11 Aug 15, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-00612 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Jan 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 10 Apr 14.
Exhibit D.  Memorandum, BCMR MED CONSLT, dated 22 Oct 14.
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Oct 14.
Exhibit F.  Memorandum, BCMR CLIN PSYCH CONSLT, dated 9 Jun 
15.
Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR dated 15 Jun 15.