RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-02708
		INDEX CODE:  100.03, 100.06
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to one that would allow him to return to active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The finding of a re-entry code of 2Q was an error and his medical condition was mis-diagnosed.  He states that he is fit for military service and he has matured since his discharge from the Air Force.

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement, a copy of a letter from Congressman, a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty and a copy of his educational evaluation from a private physician.  Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The 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 Exhibits C, D and E.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The applicant was diagnosed with Cyclothymic Disorder while on active duty that was determined to have existed for many years prior to service requiring psychiatric hospitalization on 2 occasions prior to service, and twice while on active duty.  This disorder is disqualifying both for entry and continued military service.  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/DPPD recommends denial.  Although the applicant submitted a statement expressing remorse for his misconduct, he 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.  The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial.  The applicant’s RE code is correct.  The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit E.   

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the advisory and states that he is willing to undergo a physical and psychological evaluation to determine if he is fit for duty.  He currently serves as a manager for a large company and would like the opportunity to use his abilities to serve his country.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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 in regard to his request that his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed.  After a thorough review of the documentation provided in support of his appeal and the evidence of record, it is our opinion that given the circumstances surrounding his separation from the Air Force, the RE code assigned to the applicant was proper and in compliance with the appropriate directives.  Applicant has not provided any evidence which would lead us to believe otherwise.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend a change in his RE code.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2002-02708 in Executive Session on 26 March 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 12 Aug 02, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 25 Oct 02.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 27 Nov 02.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 3 Feb 03.
	Exhibit F.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 03.
	Exhibit G.	Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Mar 03.