RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02845
		INDEX CODE:  110.02
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, Item 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, be corrected to read “Service Connected Condition.” 
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Item 28, reads “Character and Behavior Disorder” which is incorrect.  He is rated 50 percent service connected and his record should be corrected accordingly.  

In support of his request, applicant submits a copy of the Veterans Administration (VA) letter establishing his receipt of disability compensation for a service-connected disability rated at 30 percent or more.  

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 20 February 1985.  

On 9 December 1985, in accordance with AFR 39-10, Chapter 5, paragraph 5.11i, Conditions that Interfere with Military Service, the commander initiated discharge proceedings against the applicant.  The applicant was advised of his rights in this matter.  After consulting military legal counsel, the applicant waived his right to submit statements in his behalf.  In a legal review of the discharge case file, the staff judge advocate found it legally sufficient and recommended that the applicant be discharged from the Air Force with an honorable discharge.  On 19 December 1985, the discharge authority directed that the applicant be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Chapter 5, Paragraph 5.11i, Conditions that Interfere with Military Service, with a type of discharge as honorable.  The applicant was discharged on 20 December 1985 by reason of “Conditions that Interfere with Military Service not Disability-Character and Behavior Disorder” with a Separation Code of “JFX” and a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “2C.”  He served 10 months and 1 day on active duty. 

Information provided by the DVA indicates that the applicant is currently rated for service-connected disability at 40 percent for back strain and 10 percent for tinnitus.  The VA did not rate his impaired hearing or limited motion in cervical spine as service connected.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibit C, D and E.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied.  The BCMR Medical Consultant states that there is no evidence to suggest that Air Force psychiatrists made the wrong diagnosis.  Therefore, the narrative reason for discharge is correct.  

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  DPPRS states the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  DPPRS states that the applicant has not provided any facts warranting a change of his discharge.  

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPD recommends the application be denied.  DPPD states that a review of the applicant’s administrative discharge does include a medical evaluation in which he was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features by dysphoric mood, decreased appetite, insomnia, decreased concentration, and decreased interest in activities.  DPPD further states that since an adjustment disorder is considered unsuiting rather than unfitting, it is not compensable or ratable under military disability laws and policy.  The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 31 May 2002 for review and response.  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, 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 this application in Executive Session on 25 July 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

Panel Chair
Member
Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 125 September 2001, w/atch.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated
                 11 April 2002.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 21 May 2002.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 14 May 2002.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 May 2002.