RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-02623
		INDEX CODE:  110.02
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for discharge be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The phrase “Character and Behavior Disorder” is unfair and unjust.  He was young and immature while on active duty and made some poor decisions.  He believes that he has paid for his bad decisions and has matured a great deal.  Since his discharge, he has attended college, earned a pilot’s license and gained Federal employment.  This past year, he joined the Army National Guard, and states that he does not suffer from a character or behavior disorder. 

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement, a copy of a letter to the Army National Guard Enlistment Review Board, a copy of a request for a waiver, a character reference letter from the --- Army National Guard, a copy of his Enlistment/Reenlistment Document; and, a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant’s personnel records do not contain separation documentation other than his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.  Prior to enlisting in the Air Force in 1990, the applicant enlisted in the Army Reserves, but received an entry-level separation at his request, because he was not assigned the military occupation he requested (Military Police).  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on 17 January 1992 for a term of 4 years.  

He received non-judicial punishment (Article 15) in June 1993, for making a false official statement on an official accident report.  He stated the right rear tire popped and came off, which was false.  The applicant was referred for a mental health evaluation because while on guard duty at an F-16 crash site, he chambered a round of ammunition and aimed his rifle at someone.  He also became agitated and cursed at the mental health technician while being administered a battery of psychological tests.  The results of the mental health evaluation rendered diagnoses of Impulse Control Disorder Not Otherwise Specified, and Narcissistic Personality Disorder.  The psychiatrist recommended an administrative discharge based on his diagnosis.  Based on the events with his weapon and the results of the mental health evaluation, he was permanently decertified from his weapons carrying duties and from the Personnel Reliability Program and recommended for administrative separation.  The applicant was administratively discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, (unsuitability, Character and Behavior Disorder) on  17 August 1993.  He served 1 year, 7 months and 1 day on active duty.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The applicant was diagnosed with an Impulse Control Disorder and a Personality Disorder following behavior on duty that was dangerous and unacceptable.  As a result, he was discharged for unsuitability due to his character and behavior disorder.  The applicant provided his letter to the Army National Guard Enlistment Review Board, dated 10 January 2002, requesting a waiver to enter the Army National Guard.  In this letter he states while in the Air Force, he lied about the cause of an accident, stating that the brakes had failed.  He includes a memorandum confirming he is a member of the Army National Guard in good standing since January 2002.  Personality disorders are lifelong patterns of maladjustment in the individual’s personality structure, which are not medically disqualifying or unfitting but may render the individual unsuitable for further military service and may be cause for administrative action by the individual’s unit commander.  Likewise, Impulse Control Disorders are unsuiting conditions subject to administrative action by the commander that are characterized by failure to resist an impulse, drive, or temptation to perform an act that is harmful to the person or others.  Personality Disorders often have as one of their prominent features, difficulties with impulse control.  It is not clearly evident in the available documentation which diagnosis was the predominant diagnosis.  

Regardless, the behaviors and both diagnoses were unsuiting for continued service in the Air Force in his specialty.  Action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.  

The Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.  His records should remain the same and his request denied.

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.   

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 7 Mar 03, for review and comment within 30 days.  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 an error or injustice to warrant changing his narrative reason for discharge.  After careful consideration of the available evidence, we found no indication that the actions taken to effect his discharge were improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the time.  In view of the above, we agree with the opinions 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 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 Docket Number BC-2002-02623 in Executive Session on 20 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 8 Aug 02, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 31 Jan 03.
	Exhibit D	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 25 Feb 03.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Mar 03.