RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01254
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  None

		HEARING DESIRED: No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The reenlistment eligibility (RE) code he received be changed to a more favorable code.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While serving in the Philippines, he felt ostracized by his fellow servicemembers because he did not drink and smoke.  He developed a relationship with the dependent of another servicemember.  He felt more at ease with these people than with his fellow servicemembers.  He enjoyed being with these people because he was able to play sports which he loved.  Someone found out about his friendship with the dependent and he was psychologically evaluated and was found to have no disorders.  He was reevaluated and he received a less than favorable report.  He believes his relationship with the dependent was misinterpreted and he was harshly singled out.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 14 July 1987 for a period of four years as an airman basic.

On 31 July 1989, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to recommend him for discharge for conditions that interfere with military service, character and behavior disorder.

The commander stated the proposed discharge was based on the diagnosis of a 6 June 1989 mental health evaluation which determined the applicant had a severe character disorder.

In the recommendation for discharge, the commander cited the following derogatory information:

     On 1 June 1988, the applicant failed to report to duty during an exercise.  For this misconduct, he received a Record of Counseling dated 4 June 1988.

     On 23 July 1988, the applicant was counseled for failing to put sufficient time and effort into his upgrade training.  Which was annotated as a Record of Counseling on the same date.

     On 20 September 1988, the applicant was late making payments to the Airmen’s Open Mess.  For this misconduct, he received a Notice of Indebtedness dated 3 October and a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) dated 10 October 1988.

     On 27 September 1988, the applicant failed to follow safe driving practices on the flightline.  For this misconduct, the applicant received a Record of Counseling dated 28 September 1988 and an undated AF Form 1924.

     In a memorandum dated 4 October 1988, the applicant exhibited serious financial irresponsibility by his checking account being overdrawn and having numerous outstanding bills.

     On 21 November 1988, the applicant’s American Express Bank account was overdrawn, as evidenced by an undated Memorandum for Record.

     In a memorandum for record dated 2 December 1988, the applicant had a returned check for insufficient funds on 1 December 1988.

     In a memorandum for record dated 16 December 1988, the applicant on 12 December was late in making payments on a loan.

     On 8 March 1989, the applicant was delinquent in his American Express account in the amount of $260.26.  Also, during this time he owed money to his houseboy and his shop.  For this misconduct, he received a memorandum for record dated 7 March 1989, a LOR dated 9 March 1989 and the establishment of an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) on 20 March 1989.

     On 20 March 1989, the applicant was counseled on his failure to obey an order and failure to pay attention to detail, as evidenced by a Record Counseling dated 10 May 1989.

     On 4 June 1989, the applicant failed to report for mandatory disabled aircraft training.  For this misconduct, the applicant received a LOR dated 6 June 1989 and a entry in his UIF dated 7 June 1989.

The commander advised the applicant of his right to consult legal counsel; and to submit statements in his own behalf, or waive the above rights after consulting with counsel.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that the applicant was given ample opportunity for rehabilitation and that he believed it would be in the best interests of the Air Force to separate the applicant without probation and rehabilitation.  The commander indicated he sent the applicant to Mental Health where it was diagnosed that his problems stem from a personality disorder.

On 8 September 1989, after consulting with counsel, applicant waived his right to submit a statement.

On 26 September 1989, a legal review was conducted in which the staff judge advocate (SJA) recommended the applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

The applicant was honorably discharged on 17 October 1989, in the grade of airman first class, under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (conditions that interfere with military service - not disability - character and behavior disorder), with an RE code of “2C”, which indicates the applicant was involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge or entry level separation without service characterization.  He served two years, three months and four days of active duty service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, states that personality disorders are a lifelong patterns of maladjustment in the individual’s personality structure which are not medically disqualifying or unfitting which can render the servicemember unsuitable for continued military service and may be cause for administrative action.  The applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder that rendered him unsuitable for continued military service.  A personality disorder that is found to be severe enough to warrant administrative action is permanently disqualifying for reenlistment into military service.  The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends the applicant’s request be denied.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPRS states based on the documentation in the applicant’s file, his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  AFPC/DPPRS further states they concur with the AFBCMR Consultant that the applicant’s records remain the same and his request be denied.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE states the applicant received a reenlistment eligibility code of "2C," indicating the member was involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge, or entry-level separation without characterization, which is correct.  Furthermore, they state the applicant has not provided any evidence to support a change in his RE code and that waivers of RE codes are considered and approved on the basis of the needs of the respective military service and recruiting initiatives at the time of the enlistment inquiry (Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 10 October 2003, for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.  

_________________________________________________________________

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 waive the failure to timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder, which interfered with his functioning in a military environment.  Furthermore, at the time members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and circumstances of their separation.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record, we believe that given the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation, the RE code issued was in accordance with the appropriate directives.  Therefore, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-01254 in Executive Session on 13 January 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 2 Apr 03, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated
			11 Jul 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 24 Jul 03.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 30 Sep 03.
	Exhibit F.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Oct 03.