RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03341

	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reason for his separation (personality disorder) be removed from his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and his separation code and Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The narrative reason for his separation is preventing him from bettering himself.

The applicant states that although the narrative reason for his separation was a personality disorder, his wife and children had left him in Alaska due to divorce and he wanted to get out of the military and move back to Florida to be with his children.  At the time of his discharge, he had three years left on his four-year assignment.  He is currently working as a civilian contractor doing the same job he had while on active duty, working under former supervisors.  He began the job two months after his discharge.  He recently tried to join the Air Force Reserve and was denied.  He is currently enrolled in the Gulf Coast Law Enforcement Academy and will graduate in May 2003.

In support of the appeal, the applicant submits a letter from the Gulf Coast Community College and a statement from his employer.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 16 August 1999 for a period of six years.

On 26 March 2001, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for violation of Article 92 (failure to obey written regulations and technical orders) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  Specifically, on 27 February 2001, while filling his refueling unit 11 at Oscar pump house, he purposely defeated the dead man safety device by blocking it open.  This allowed his truck to continue to fill unattended, while he left the fill stand area and walked to the pump house.

He underwent a command-directed mental health evaluation on 11 April 2001, and was diagnosed by a clinical psychiatrist as having an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety with depressed mood and dependent personality traits.  The psychiatrist was also of the opinion that the applicant’s adjustment and personality disorders were so severe that his ability to function in the military environment was significantly impaired and recommended his administrative discharge.

On 23 April 2001, the commander notified him that he was recommending his administrative discharge for mental disorders.  Specifically, that the applicant’s personality disorder had resulted in his inability to adapt to military life.  The applicant waived his right to consult legal counsel and did not submit any matters for consideration.

The discharge authority approved the recommended discharge action on 1 May 2001.

On 8 May 2001, he was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, by reason of Personality Disorder, and issued a Separation Code of JFX and RE code 2C (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service).  He completed 5 years, 6 months, and 14 days of active service.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that although the applicant’s maladaptive personality traits were not judged to be severe enough to warrant a formal diagnosis of a personality disorder, they significantly contributed to his behavior and the development of his adjustment disorder.  While the applicant is concerned that the narrative reason for his separation will interfere with his pursuit of a career in law enforcement, the facts of the circumstances surrounding his administrative discharge cannot be changed.  However, he may seek psychological evaluation and testing to support his application for employment in civilian law enforcement.  The action and disposition in the case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives.

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

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  In addition, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge process.

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPAE states, in part, that the RE code of 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service,” is correct.

The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 4 April 2003 for review and response within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response from the applicant.  However, a civilian psychologist has provided a statement indicating that it is highly unlikely that an individual with a personality disorder would be able to perform five and a half years in the military and not have numerous problems.  The psychologist also states that the applicant’s marriage was in crisis and the only way that he knew to return to the continental United States was to attempt to get a mental health diagnosis; however, he had no idea that such a diagnosis would continue to have a long-term impact upon his future job opportunities.

A copy of the psychologist’s statement 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice to warrant changing the narrative reason for the applicant’s separation and separation code.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, a majority of the Board is not persuaded that relief should be granted.  In this respect, a majority of the Board notes that the applicant was referred for a mental health evaluation based on his lack of attention to detail, defiance towards supervisors, inappropriate displays of anger, and emotional distress.  He was subsequently diagnosed  with an adjustment disorder and administratively discharged in 2001.  The applicant contends that the reason for his separation (personality disorder) is preventing him from becoming a police officer.  Current Air Force Instructions regulating separations for mental health problems do not allow coding for other than “Personality Disorder,” an entirely different DSM-IV code sequence from that with which the applicant was diagnosed.  However, a majority of the Board does not believe this administrative shortfall and any concerns this Board may have regarding the erroneous labeling of the applicant, should outweigh our caution in disturbing the record in the name of the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force when there is evidence the applicant attacked two co-workers while on active duty.  It is uncontested that while on active duty, the applicant had a disorder so severe that it significantly impaired his ability to function in the military and warranted his separation.  Although he was not diagnosed with a personality disorder because his maladaptive personality traits were not judged severe enough, they did impair his ability to function effectively in the military environment.  The circumstances surrounding his separation remain unchanged and should be appropriately documented in his records - especially since he desires to enter civilian law enforcement.  More importantly, a majority of the Board is extremely uncomfortable with using the term “Secretarial Authority” for the discharge reason when the applicant has indicated a desire to enter civil law enforcement and there is medical evidence documenting a mental disorder.  In view of his inappropriate displays of anger while on active duty, and in an effort to protect the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, a majority of the Board strongly believes the record should remain undisturbed and should he still desire civilian law enforcement employment, he may seek psychological evaluation and testing, as recommended by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant, to support his application for employment.  In view of the above, a majority of the Board finds that the applicant has not satisfied his burden to show there has been an error or injustice.  Therefore, a majority of the Board does not recommend favorable consideration of his request to change the narrative reason for his separation and separation code.

4.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice concerning the applicant’s RE code.  The applicant has provided no evidence showing that his assigned RE code is in error or contrary to the prevailing instruction.  It is clear that the decision to separate the applicant was proper based on his situation at the time.  The RE code which was issued at the time of applicant’s discharge accurately reflects the circumstances of his separation, i.e., involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge.  Accordingly, we do not find this code to be in error or unjust.  We therefore conclude that no basis exists upon which to recommend favorable action on his request that it be changed.

5.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice regarding the applicant’s narrative reason for separation and separation code and recommends this portion of the application be denied.  All members of the Board find insufficient evidence of error or injustice with regard to the applicant’s Reenlistment Eligibility code.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2002-03341 in Executive Session on 22 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

By majority vote, the Board voted to deny the applicant’s request to change his narrative reason for separation and separation code.  Mr XXXX voted to grant this portion of the applicant’s request and has submitted a minority report which is at Exhibit H.  All members voted to deny the applicant’s request to change his Reenlistment Eligibility code.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Oct 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 2 Jan 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Feb 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 27 Mar 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Apr 03.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, dated 21 Mar 03.
    Exhibit H.  Minority Report.

                                   

Dear Applicant

	Reference your application submitted under the provisions of AFI 36-2603 (Section 1552, 10 USC), AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-03341.

	After careful consideration of your application and military records, a majority of the Board determined that the evidence you presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.  The Secretary's designee accepted the recommendation of the majority and denied your application.

	You have the right to submit newly discovered relevant evidence for consideration by the Board.  In the absence of such additional evidence, a further review of your application is not possible.

	BY DIRECTION OF THE PANEL CHAIR

Attachment:
SAF/MRB Memo, w/Record 
 of Board Proceedings

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR
                                       CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:	AFBCMR Application of APPLICANT

	I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that the application be denied.

	Please advise the applicant accordingly.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR 
			    CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  APPLICANT, DOCKET NO: BC-2002-03341

	The majority of the Board recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change the narrative reason for his separation and separation code.  I disagree.

	The applicant was administratively discharged after being diagnosed with an adjustment disorder.  Although the discharge action taken against him was in accordance with the applicable instruction, I find the narrative reason for his separation; i.e., personality disorder, to be inappropriate since he was not diagnosed with this condition.  The BCMR Medical Consultant confirms that the applicant’s maladaptive personality traits were not judged to be severe enough to warrant a formal diagnosis of a personality disorder.

	Since current Air Force Instructions regulating separations for mental health problems do not allow coding for other than “Personality Disorder,” an entirely different DSM-IV code sequence from that with which the applicant was diagnosed, I believe his records are in error based on this administrative shortfall.  Furthermore, since the applicant indicates that the narrative reason for his separation is preventing him from becoming a police officer, and we recognize that he was not diagnosed with a personality disorder and yet has been improperly labeled with such a condition, I believe he is also the victim of an injustice.

	In view of the above, I find that the applicant has satisfied his burden to show there has been an error or injustice.  Therefore, I recommend the narrative reason for his separation and separation code be changed to reflect “Secretarial Authority” and “JFF,” respectively.