RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03362
		INDEX CODE:  112.10
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reentry (RE) code and narrative reason for separation be changed to allow him to reenlist in the military.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge is improper because he never had a personality disorder.  His examining physician said he had a personality disorder only to speed up the process for a hardship discharge.  The hardship situation no longer exists so he would like his reentry code and narrative reason for discharge to be corrected.  

In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of a Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Rating Decision.  His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 10 July 1998 at the age of 18 for a period of four years in the grade of airman basic (E-1).  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3) effective and with a date of rank of 15 November 1999.  He was trained in the Air Force career field, Fire Protection Apprentice, Air Force Specialty Code 3E731.

On 15 March 2000, the applicant presented himself to the mental health clinic for sleep disturbance, work dissatisfaction, and depression related to an impending trial of his father.  He also reported fleeting thoughts of suicide.  His mental health evaluation dated 1 May 2000, rendered a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood that was so severe as to interfere with continued military service and recommended administrative separation for unsuitability.  The applicant received an Enlisted Performance Report for the period 15 July 1998 through 15 June 2000 with an overall rating of three.  The report reflected a satisfactory performance but noted a decline in duty performance during the middle of the rating period and difficulties with relationships with supervisors.  On 26 June 2000, the applicant received a letter of reprimand (LOR) from his section commander for failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed.  The applicant submitted a rebuttal to the LOR on 28 June 2000. 

On 18 July 2000, his commander notified the applicant of his intent to recommend the applicant’s discharge.  The applicant was advised of his rights, acknowledged receipt, consulted counsel, and waived his rights to submit statements in his own behalf.  On 24 July 2000, his commander recommended that the applicant be honorably discharged from the Air Force without offering probation and rehabilitation.  On 27 July 2000, the discharge authority directed that the applicant be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.11.1, Conditions that Interfere with Military Service - Mental Disorders.  The applicant was separated with an honorable discharge on 6 August 2000 by reason of “Personality Disorder” with a Separation Code of JFX and a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2C, (involuntary separation with honorable discharge).  The applicant had served 2 years and 22 days on active duty. 

On 24 July 2003, after he made application to the AFBCMR, AFPC/DPPRSP notified the applicant that his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty, was corrected to reflect the narrative reason for discharge as being “Secretarial Authority.”  On 10 September 2000, AFPC/DPPAE, notified the applicant that the RE Code of “2C” he received at the time of his discharge was correct based on his involuntary discharge with an honorable characterization of service.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that the narrative reason for the applicant’s discharge should be changed to Secretarial Authority, but feels no change in the RE Code is warranted.  The BCMR Medical Consultant notes that the applicant’s service medical record is not available for review; however, the mental health recommendation letter dated 1 May 2000, indicates he presented to the mental health clinic in March 2000 with depressed mood related to job difficulties and an impending trial of his father in which the applicant was to testify.  His formal psychiatric diagnosis was Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood.  Therapy with medication and counseling did not improve his symptoms.  The BCMR Medical Consultant states that Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood is characterized by marked psychological distress in response to identifiable stressors that overcome the individual’s ability to cope and is frequently associated with significant impairment in social and occupational functioning.  The emotional and behavioral responses may be in excess of what would normally be expected given the nature of the stressors.  Manifestations can include depressed mood, anxiety, and disturbances of conduct.  Individuals who develop Adjustment Disorder due to the stress of the routine rigors of military service with or without concomitant personal issues are not suited for military service and are subject to administrative discharge by their commander.  One of the key features of Adjustment Disorder is that the condition resolves with the relief of the stressors; however, in this case the applicant’s symptoms of depressed mood persisted and he was subsequently diagnosed with Dysthymic Disorder.  Dysthymic Disorder is characterized by a chronically sad mood that is not of a severity to warrant diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder.  Many active members with Dysthymic Disorder continue to function well despite their chronically sad mood.  

The BCMR Medical Consultant notes that the DVA Rating Decision dated 10 June 2002, granted the applicant a disability rating of ten percent for service connected Dysthymic Disorder.  The DVA specifically commented that a diagnosis of a Personality Disorder was not warranted and that the applicant’s symptoms were mild in nature.  The BCMR Medical Consultant states that even though the narrative reason for discharge on the applicant’s DD Form 214 is listed as personality disorder, the applicant was not diagnosed with a personality disorder.  Department of Defense uses the term “personality disorder” administratively to include all unsuiting character and behavior disorders including Adjustment Disorder, Personality Disorders, and Impulse Control Disorders.  This term is confusing because the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders uses the term “personality disorder” in a specific, defined manner to classify specific disorders of personality that do not include Adjustment Disorder or Impulse Control Disorder.  Prior regulations used the more inclusive and less confusing “character and behavior disorder.”  Since the applicant was not diagnosed with a personality disorder and was further not noted to demonstrate maladaptive traits suggestive of a personality disorder, it is the Medical Consultant’s opinion that it is inaccurate to list the narrative reason as personality disorder, even though administratively it is correct.  Although action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law, change in the narrative reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority is recommended.  The applicant’s reenlistment code should not be changed since the applicant is at high risk of recurrent symptoms of Adjustment Disorder that would interfere with military duty when re-exposed to the stresses of military life.  Details of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation are at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 12 September 2003, for review and comment within 30 days 

(Exhibit D).  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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice concerning the applicant RE Code.  We note that the Air Force has changed the applicant’s narrative reason for separation from “Personality Disorder” to “Secretarial Authority and issued a corrected DD Form 214.  The RE code which was issued at the time of the applicant’s separation accurately reflects the circumstances of his separation, i.e., involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge, and we do not find this code to be in error or unjust.  The applicant has provided no evidence that would lead us to believe that he would not again suffer the effects of an adjustment disorder when exposed to the rigors of military life.  Accordingly, his request to change his RE Code is not favorably considered.  

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable 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 6 November 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

	Vice Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-03362 was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Nov 02 w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.

     Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dtd 3 Jul 03.
     Exhibit D.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 14 Jul 03.