RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-03652
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation, separation code and reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow eligibility to reenlist in the military.

His mailing address after separation and the nearest relative listed on his DD Form 214, Blocks 19.a and 19.b, be changed.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The medical doctor submitted the wrong diagnosis for separation “Personality Disorder” - it should be changed to “Failure to Adapt.”

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement, copies of his DD Form 214, medical statements, statements of support, medical documentation, DD Form 293 (Application for Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States) and additional documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 11 Oct 00 for a period of four years.

On 12 Jan 01, the applicant was evaluated by the Inpatient Mental Health Service at Keesler Medical Center and diagnosed with an adjustment disorder, with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct.  He was recommended for separation.

On 27 Jan 01, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment on him under Article 15, UCMJ.  The misconduct applicant had allegedly committed was for being absent without leave (AWOL) during the period 4-9 Jan 01 and failure to go, during the period 22 and 23 Jan 01, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ.  The applicant consulted a lawyer, waived his right to demand trial by court-martial and accepted nonjudicial punishment.  After considering all matters presented to him, the commander found that the applicant did commit one or more of the offenses alleged.  The commander imposed punishment consisting of a forfeiture of $482.00 and restriction for 30 days.  Applicant did not appeal the punishment.

On 18 Jan 01, the applicant received notification that he was being recommended for discharge for mental disorders.  He received an uncharacterized entry level separation on 1 Feb 01 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (personality disorder).  He had completed a total of 3 months and 20 days and was serving in the grade of airman basic (E-1) at the time of separation.  He received an RE Code of 2C, which defined means "Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or, entry level separation without characterization of service."
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied.  The AFBCMR Medical Consultant states that, upon the applicant’s return from being absent without leave (AWOL), he was hospitalized 9-17 Jan 01 with depressed mood and suicidal ideation.  The psychiatry narrative summary reveals a history of three incidents of self-injurious behavior since entering the military and a history of multiple suicide gestures and expressions prior to entering the military.  The applicant was apparently hospitalized for three weeks at a psychiatric hospital in the summer before entering the military.  On his enlistment screening questionnaires, the applicant answered in the negative to questions regarding a history of mental illness or treatment by mental health professionals or hospitalization for mental health issues.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant states that the applicant demonstrated a pattern of maladjustment in his personality structure that was evident prior to service manifesting as depressed mood and repetitive suicidal attempts or gestures.  Shortly after entering active duty, this pattern recurred and he was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct.  He also demonstrated abnormal personality traits suggestive of an underlying personality disorder; however, formal diagnosis was deferred likely because all diagnostic criteria were not met.  His condition, though not medically disqualifying or unfitting, rendered the individual unsuitable for further military service and resulted in administrative action by the unit commander.  Action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.  The AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the applicant’s request for a change to his narrative reason for separation be denied.  DPPRS states that, based upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE recommends the applicant’s request for a change to his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be denied.  DPPAE states that applicant’s RE code of 2C is correct.  The HQ AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 23 August 2002 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit F).
_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request for clarification regarding whether a change of the narrative reason for discharge currently listed as personality disorder is justified, the AFBCMR Medical Consultant provided the following advisory opinion.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted.  The AFBCMR Medical Consultant states that the applicant was administratively discharged for unsuitability due to adjustment disorder and unsuiting maladaptive personality traits listed on Axis II of his mental health diagnosis as borderline and antisocial traits.  During his short time on active duty, the applicant committed misconduct, including going AWOL and failure to go.  Additionally, he concealed his history of mental illness on his entrance medical examinations, thus, fraudulently gaining entry into the Air Force.  The applicant demonstrated a pattern of maladjustment in his personality structure that was evident prior to service manifesting as depressed mood and repetitive suicidal attempts or gestures.  The applicant’s narrative reason for discharge is listed as personality disorder even though his primary diagnosis was adjustment disorder.  The DoD uses the term “personality disorder” administratively on the DD Form 214 to refer to all unsuiting character and behavior disorder, including adjustment disorder, personality disorders and impulse control disorders.  

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant states that the applicant clearly had an established pattern of maladaptive coping and abnormal behavioral responses prior to entering the service more consistent with maladaptive personality traits, if not a personality disorder.  The post-service psychological testing does not change the facts of the record nor his diagnoses while on active duty.  In cases where the diagnosis of adjustment disorder is clear and uncomplicated by a personality disorder diagnosis or the presence of maladaptive personality traits, as recorded on Axis II of the mental health diagnosis, and there is no misconduct, the AFBCMR Medical Consultant will recommend consideration of changing the narrative reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority.  This case was complicated both by the presence of diagnosed Axis II personality traits and misconduct.  The opinion of the Medical Consultant is that the narrative reason for discharge as personality disorder is proper.  Even if his adjustment disorder diagnosis was uncomplicated by abnormal personality traits or misconduct, he is not suited for reentry into military service and the reenlistment eligibility code should not be changed.  The AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 23 January 2003 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit H).
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s submission, we are unpersuaded that the requested relief should be approved.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we found no persuasive evidence that responsible officials applied inappropriate standards in effecting the applicant’s discharge, that pertinent Air Force instructions were violated or that the applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.  We therefore agree with the opinions and recommendations of the appropriate Air Force offices and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  With regard to the DD Form 214 correction, no evidence has been presented to indicate that the information reflected in Blocks 19a and 19b were incorrect at the time of his separation.  In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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 13 Mar 03, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number 01-03652.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Apr 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 17 May 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 6 Jun 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 15 Aug 02.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Aug 02.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 14 Jan 03.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 Jan 03.