RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00274
	
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation be changed from Personality Disorder and his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was told that he was bi-polar by a military counselor, but he does not feel that he is and would like to reenlist in the Air Force (Exhibit A).

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 8 July 1998, applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of 4 years in the grade of airman first class (E-3/A1C). 

On 9 Oct 98, applicant was counseled for failing a room inspection.  He was counseled again for failure to attend an appointment on 24 October 1998.  On 7 January 1999, he was administratively reprimanded for failing a dormitory inspection for the fourth time.

On 5 February 1999, the 81 MDOS/SGOH1D, Keesler Medical Center Inpatient Mental Health Unit at Keesler AFB, MS evaluated applicant due to suicidal ideation.  They found his pattern of extreme dependence, mood fluctuations and suicidal ideation rendered him incapable of active duty service.  His prognosis for continued service was poor and he would have remained a risk to himself, and his difficulties would have likely affected the mission of his command.  He was deemed unsuitable for continued military service on the basis of the above diagnosis.  They recommended an expeditious entry-level administrative separation due to applicant’s manifestation of poor adaptability to such severity that it precluded adequate military service.  His ability to function in the military effectively was significantly impaired and continued stress of the active duty environment would have likely resulted in danger to himself in the future.

On 17 February 1999, the squadron section commander initiated administrative discharge action against the applicant for conditions that interfere with military service, mental disorders.  The specific reasons for the proposed action were the incidents of misconduct cited above and the 5 February 1999 evaluation by the Mental Health Unit, which diagnosed the applicant with an adjustment disorder.  It was determined that this disorder significantly impaired his ability to function effectively in the military.  The applicant was advised of his right to counsel and to submit statements on his own behalf.  He waived his right to consult counsel and did not submit a statement on his own behalf.  On 17 February 99, the Administrative Actions Branch found the case file legally sufficient and recommended that the applicant be separated with an honorable service characterization, without probation and rehabilitation (P&R), for a condition that interferes with military service (mental disorder).  The discharge authority directed applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge, without P&R.

On 18 February 1999, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, by reason of personality disorder, and was issued an RE code of 2C (involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry-level separation without characterization of service).  He served 6 months and 11 days on active duty.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant states that the applicant was discharged on 18 February 1999, after 6 months on active duty and after being identified with an adjustment disorder.  He indicated that the applicant had an adjustment disorder with personality traits that interfered with his military duties/training and was the cause of his discharge.  The fact that the applicant did not have the longitudinal history of maladaptive behavior necessary to definitively diagnose a personality disorder does not negate the documented history of marked difficulty coping with military life.  The narrative reason for separation is used for members with adjustment disorders and is not improper in this instance.  The case was properly evaluated as indicated by the evidence of record and there is no evidence of error or irregularity in the processing of this case.  Action and disposition in this case are proper and reflect compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.  It is his opinion that no change in the records is warranted and the application should be denied.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this application and commented on the applicant’s discharge.  They found that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, that the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  They also noted that the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE reviewed this application and found that his RE code 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry-level separation without characterization of service,” is correct.  

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 14 Jun 02 for review and comment within 30 days.  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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice to warrant a change in the applicant’s narrative reason for separation or his RE code.  After reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s records are in error or that he has been the victim of an injustice.  His contentions are noted; however, in our opinion, the detailed comments provided by the appropriate Air Force offices adequately address those allegations.  The discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing Air Force Instruction (AFI) and we find no evidence to indicate that the narrative reason for separation and the assigned reenlistment eligibility (RE) code were inappropriate.  Therefore, we agree with opinion and recommendation of the Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-00274 in Executive Session on 1 August 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, undated.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 11 Mar 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Apr 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 4 Jun 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Jun 02, w/atchs.