RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00149
		INDEX NUMBER:  110.00
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Reenlistment Eligibility Code be changed from “2C,” “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service, to one in the “1” series, which will allow her to reenter the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While in the Air Force, she was misdiagnosed and discharged inappropriately.  She has since been to a psychologist that reviewed her discharge and has had sessions with her to help prove that her discharge was inequitable.

In support of her appeal, applicant provides a statement detailing the circumstances that led to her discharge.  She discusses her depression at the time and her recovery.  She states that she is now more emotionally stable and mature and indicates that if the same situation were to arise in the future, she would take advantage of the resources made available to her.  The applicant also provides a statement of psychological evaluation from a licensed psychologist that she retained to determine whether she had any mental health issue that would preclude her from serving in the military.  The psychologist determined that there is no evidence of an Axis I or Axis II Mental Disorder at the present time and there is no reason, from a mental health standpoint, to prevent the applicant from reentering the military.

The applicant has also attached a copy of the discharge paperwork prepared in her case.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty on 24 Jan 01 in the grade of airman basic.  On 7 May 01, her squadron section commander notified her that she was recommending her discharge from the Air Force for a mental disorder.  The reason for the commander’s action was that on or about 23 Apr 01, the applicant was diagnosed by a psychologist as having an adjustment disorder with depressed mood and personality disorder, not otherwise specified (NOS), as described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), which was so severe that her ability to function effectively in the military environment was significantly impaired.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander’s notification on 7 May 01.  She elected to waive her right to consult counsel and to submit statements in her behalf.  On 7 May 01, the applicant’s squadron section commander recommended to the training group commander that the applicant be discharged with an entry-level separation.  On 11 May 01, the staff judge advocate reviewed the discharge package and found it legally sufficient to support the applicant’s discharge and concurred with the recommendation for an entry-level separation.  On 15 May 01, the training group commander directed that the applicant be discharged with an entry-level separation.  The applicant was discharged on 16 May 01 with an entry-level separation for personality disorder.  She received a “2C” RE code.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  The applicant began to experience difficulties with emotional distress and inability to adapt to the military training environment after two months and expressed her desire to stop reporting for class and to get out of the military.  Thorough evaluation while she was symptomatic by mental health personnel disclosed diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood and Personality Disorder NOS.  Adjustment Disorder when severe enough is unsuiting for continued military service and cause for administrative discharge.  One of the key features of Adjustment Disorder is that the condition resolves with relief of the stressors.  This is why it is not surprising, nor contradictory that the applicant, currently no longer working in the military environment, no longer has a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder.

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.  Personality Disorders are frequently exacerbated by stress and may present with symptoms consistent with Adjustment Disorder.  The applicant underwent repeat psychological evaluation at a time when she was asymptomatic and no longer under the stress of the military training environment resulting in a conclusion that she does not have a personality disorder.  Although a single psychological interview may be sufficient to establish a diagnosis, often multiple interviews over time or supplementary information from other informants (Spouses, employers, etc.) and formal psychological testing (typically includes the MMPI-II) may be necessary to recognize the patterns that typify Personality Disorder.  The Air Force psychologists had the advantage of evaluating the applicant at a time of stress with supplementary information from supervisors and her husband.  At the time of that evaluation, the applicant was motivated to get out of the Air Force.  The civilian psychologist does not mention any sources of supplementary information and the applicant is motivated to reenlist.  Further, the civilian psychologist lists numerous tests that were administered but makes no mention of the MMPI-II, the standard test for evaluating personality.  The tests that were administered are informative with regard to current symptoms.  It is likely that the applicant has personality traits that interfere with her ability to function in the military environment.  Whether or not the applicant has a Personality Disorder is disputed but not resolved by the post discharge evaluation.

Regardless, the applicant demonstrated that she was not suitable for military service due to Adjustment Disorder and has at minimum maladaptive personality traits further rendering her unsuitable.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge process.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPAE reviewed the applicant’s case file and determined that her RE code of “2C” is correct.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 19 Jun 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations 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-2003-00149 in Executive Session on 20 August 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Jan 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant,
                dated 4 Apr 03.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 May 03.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 16 Jun 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Jun 03.