RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00575
		INDEX NUMBER:  110.00
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  XXXXX

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “4” (sic) be deleted so that he may join the Army, either in the Reserves or the National Guard.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In a four-page brief of counsel, with an attached evaluation performed by a licensed clinical social worker, applicant categorically denies any mental disorder before his entry into the Air Force.

In Nov 02, he was evaluated by a civilian licensed clinical social worker that made the following essential findings:

	    a.  The medical criteria used to justify the administrative separation were “totally unsubstantiated.”

	    b.  The applicant does not meet the criteria for Borderline Personality Disorder; there clearly were insufficient grounds for such a military characterization.

	    c.  The applicant’s poor overall functioning at his duty assignment is unsupported by any reliable evidence.

	    d.  The applicant never received treatment for mental health problems prior to entry into the Air Force.

The applicant was successfully doing his job at the time of his discharge and received a contemporaneous five out of five rating.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 28 Sep 93.  The applicant’s squadron commander notified him on 18 Apr 95 that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for involuntary convenience of the government involving a condition that interferes with military service, specifically a mental disorder.  The reason for the commander’s action was the applicant’s diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct and Borderline Personality Disorder (Primary Diagnosis).  In addition, the applicant had other derogatory data listed in his military record consisting of a Letter of Reprimand for disrespect to his superiors.  This data was not used as a basis for discharge.  However, the applicant was advised that the data could be considered to determine whether he should be discharged or retained and on the issue of probation and rehabilitation.  The applicant acknowledged receipt on 18 Apr 95 and waived his option to consult counsel and to submit statements.  On 18 Apr 95, the applicant’s squadron commander recommended to the wing commander that the applicant be discharged for the reasons previously stated.  The recommendation was reviewed by the wing staff judge advocate and found legally sufficient to support discharge.  He recommended the applicant be separated with an honorable discharge, without probation and rehabilitation.  On 21 Apr 95, the wing commander approved the applicant’s discharge and directed that he be discharged with service characterized as honorable without probation and rehabilitation.  The applicant was discharged on 27 Apr 95.  His DD Form 214 indicates a narrative reason for separation of “Personality Disorder” and a RE code of “2C,” “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge.”

The applicant’s record does not contain any enlisted performance reports (EPRs).  However, a letter of evaluation (LOE), AF Form 77, was accomplished due to his administrative discharge.  LOEs do not contain numerical ratings.

The BCMR considered and denied a previous case from the applicant on 17 Sep 96 requesting that the narrative reason for separation and his separation code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends that the applicant’s request be denied.

The applicant was referred for mental health evaluation after being disciplined for being disrespectful to his supervisors and reportedly telling his commander that he was going to snap and wanted out of the Air Force.  The mental health evaluation reported a significant mental health history that began before service entry and continued through basic and technical training into the time of evaluation.  The evaluating psychologist typically obtains such detailed information directly from the patient.  Evidence to the contrary is obtained by review of the personnel record (only six weeks of abnormal behavior characterized as mistrust and aggressiveness), the medical record (previous “negative” psychological testing), and character letters from the Discharge Review Board.  Psychological testing reported to be consistent with personality disorder.  The validity of such testing depends on accurate responses by the patient.  Psychological testing in Oct 93 produced results that did not warrant psychological intervention and the applicant was returned to duty.

The mental health opinion provided as new evidence contests the diagnosis of personality disorder but opines that an adjustment disorder was likely present.  The BCMR Medical Consultant agrees that there is an absence of evidence to support a diagnosis of personality disorder beyond the results of the psychological testing and mental health interview in Apr 95.  Overall the evidence available in the record is sparse and a definitive evaluation is not possible.  He concludes that the preponderance of the evidence supports the diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder and the presence of behavioral or personality patterns that conflicted with continued adjustment to military service and rendered the applicant unsuitable for military service.  The fact that the applicant accepted his discharge and waived his right to counsel and to submit a statement on his behalf suggests that the applicant desired to leave the Air Force and did not disagree at the time with his psychiatric diagnoses.

The DoD uses the term personality disorder administratively on the DD Form 214 to include all unsuiting character and behavior disorders including Adjustment Disorder and others.  This can be 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.  Although “personality disorder” is listed on the applicant’s DD Form 214 as the narrative reason for discharge, he may not have a personality disorder as used in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.  The Discharge Review Board concluded that the applicant willfully misrepresented himself in order to gain separation from the Air Force and denied his request.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends that the applicant’s case be denied.  Based on their review of the documentation in the case file they believe that the applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  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 determined that the applicant’s RE code of “2C” is correct.  They state that no evidence has been presented to support changing the RE code.  Waivers of RE codes for enlistment are considered and approved based on the needs of the respective military service at the time of the enlistment inquiry.

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 11 Jul 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 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 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.

4.  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

_______________________________________________________________

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-2003-00575 in Executive Session on 4 September 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Feb 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant,
                dated 14 May 03.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 23 May 03.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 8 Jul 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jul 03.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair