RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00505
		INDEX CODE:  110.02, 112.10

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2P (Separated involuntarily under AFR 39-10 as a marginal performer) be changed and his separation code be changed to either medical reasons or in the best interest of the Air Force.  

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His RE code 2P reflects him as being absent without leave (AWOL)/Deserter, which was never the situation.  He never missed a duty call.  A waiver or correction will allow him an opportunity for a civilian position with the Federal government.

He was immature and made some stupid statements out of frustration and anger for being lied to by the recruiter.  The statements got back to his noncommissioned officers (NCOs) but were later found to be without truth.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement and an employment resume.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 30 Jan 81, in the grade of airman first class, for a period of 6 years.  He was a “Guaranteed Training Enlistee,” with his first regular duty assignment as a voice processing specialist.

On 9 Oct 81, the squadron commander initiated administrative discharge action against the applicant, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, para 3-8l, for his failure to attain required job skill proficiency either by associated inaptitude or nonapplication.  The specific reasons for the proposed action were:

On several occasions applicant alleged that he intended to sell classified information to the Russians.

On or about 10 Sep 81, he was diagnosed by the mental health clinic as having a narcissistic personality disorder and was recommended for disqualification under the Personnel Reliability Program (PRP).

On or about 16 Sep 81, he was removed from training for security reasons.

On 6 Oct 81, applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification.  He waived his right to consult counsel and to submit statements in his own behalf.  On 13 Oct 81, the staff judge advocate found the case to be legally sufficient.  On 19 Oct 81, the discharge authority directed applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge.

On 21 Oct 81, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, by reason of marginal performer assigned to initial training, and was issued an RE code of 2P (Separated involuntarily under AFR 39-10, as marginal performer or to preserve good order and discipline, BMT eliminees discharged due to erroneous enlistment, concealment of civilian convictions and so forth).  He served 8 months and 22 days on active duty.

In an Apr 84 change to AFR 35-16, Table 6-2, RE code 2P was changed to indicate “absent without leave (AWOL); deserter or dropped from rolls (DFR).”

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial of applicant’s request to change the reason for his discharge.  They found that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, that the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  They also noted that the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE found that his RE code 2P, “Separated involuntarily under AFR 39-10, as marginal performer or to preserve good order and discipline, BMT eliminees discharged due to erroneous enlistment, concealment of civilian convictions and so forth,” is correct.  

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant states that the applicant was evaluated by mental health beginning on 10 Sep 81 on referral due to disruptive behavior and questionable loyalty to the Air Force.  “Applicant reports that all he wants from the Air Force is his college degree.”  “He describes himself as “not military” and not interested in remaining in the military after completing his degree.  He reports that he does not want to be in Defense Language Institute (DLI) training, but will remain in the AF if given what he wants.”  “He expressed himself in a demanding, self-centered manner.  He was extremely talkative, and at times grandiose in expressing his plans for the future.  Psychological testing reveals a very self-centered, overactive, impulsive young man.  This type of person tends to become irritable and belligerent in response to minor frustrations.  It is likely that this airman will continue his disruptive behavior whenever his own needs are not met.”  He was diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder.  The psychologist recommended he be disqualified from the Personality Reliability Program (PRP) and administratively discharged due to unsuitability.

Applicant requests consideration for a medical discharge based on his diagnosis of personality disorder.  The applicant’s commander had the option of discharging him based on unsuitability due to his personality disorder.  His DD Form 214 would have listed his narrative reason for discharge as “Personality Disorder” with a separation code of JFX “Condition that interferes with military service - not disability - personality disorder” and a consistent RE code that barred reenlistment.  Discharges for unsuitability due to personality disorder are not “medical” discharges.  A “medical” or disability discharge is for conditions acquired while on active duty that interfere with performance of duty rendering the member “unfit” for continued duty.  Personality disorders on the other hand are not a disease, but 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.

Although the action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law, no change to the record is warranted, however, a change in the DD Form 214 to reflect separation based on personality disorder is supported by the evidence.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit F.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reiterated his original contentions and further explained the circumstances surrounding his short military service and subsequent discharge.  He would like an opportunity to prove himself again by serving his country in the military and earning the right to have his Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) status changed to an acceptable rating.

In support of his appeal, applicant provided another statement and letters of character reference from friends and associates.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit H.

___________________________________________________________________

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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting a correction of the applicant’s reenlistment eligibility (RE) code.  At the time of the applicant’s separation in 1981, his assigned RE Code of 2P accurately reflected his involuntary separation as a marginal performer.  RE Code 2P was subsequently changed to denote that the member was absent without leave (AWOL); a deserter or dropped from the rolls.  While the applicant’s RE Code of 2P was correct at the time it was issued, applying today’s definition could be misconstrued to infer that his separation was due to him being AWOL or a deserter.  Therefore, to preclude any possible injustice to the applicant, we recommend that his RE code be changed to “2C,” which will reflect that he was involuntarily separated under the provisions of AFR 39-10 with an honorable discharge.  This is the code he would receive today if he were separated under similar circumstances.  Accordingly, we recommend that the applicant’s records be corrected to the extent indicated below.

4.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting a change to the applicant separation code.  The discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing regulation and we find no evidence to indicate that his separation from the Air Force was inappropriate.  Although the applicant has requested that his separation code be changed to medical reasons or in the best interest of the Air Force, we found no evidence that his physical fitness to perform his duties at the time of his separation was questionable.  We note that the BCMR Medical Consultant indicated that the evidence of record supports a change to the applicant’s separation document to reflect his separation was based on personality disorder.  However, this was an option available to the applicant’s commander when he initiated the discharge action for marginal performance.  Having found no evidence of error or injustice with respect to the applicant’s discharge as a marginal performer, we are not persuaded that the current reason for separation and corresponding separation code should be disturbed.

5.  Applicant’s request to have his Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) status changed to an acceptable rating is duly noted.  However, other than his own assertions, no evidence has been presented showing that his disqualification to perform duties under the PRP was based on erroneous information.  Furthermore, PRP status is only applicable to individuals performing duties in an official billet requiring PRP certification.  In view of the foregoing, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider the applicant’s request.

__________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 21 October 1981, he was discharged with Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code “2C.”

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00505 in Executive Session on 16 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair
Member
Member

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Feb 03, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 6 Mar 03.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 15 Apr 03.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Apr 03.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 27 May 03.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Jun 03, w/atchs.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Jun 03, w/atchs. 

                                   
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2003-00505

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 21 October 1981, he was discharged with Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code “2C.”

		
		Director
		Air Force Review Boards Agency