RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01569
		INDEX CODE:  112.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His character of service and reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reason stated for his discharge is not correct and is untrue.  Since his discharge, he never needed counseling or treatment.  Before the incident and after, his job ratings were and have been excellent, including his civilian government job.  The cause of his problems leading to his separation was a marriage (not personal) during a drawdown phase.  He is no longer married.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 214, a copy of his job evaluation documents, and a personal statement.  Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 3 June 1993.  Prior to the events under review, he was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4), effective and with a date of rank of 3 June 1996.  He received four Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs), in which the promotion recommendations were “5,” “5,” “5” and “4.”

On 23 September 1998, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge due to mental disorders.  The applicant was diagnosed as having an adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of conduct and emotion.  His diagnosis was determined to be so severe that it significantly impaired his ability to function effectively in the military environment.  The applicant was advised of his rights.  Specifically, he was advised that an honorable discharge would be recommended without the offer of probation and rehabilitation.  After consulting military legal counsel, the applicant submitted statements for consideration by the discharge authority.  In a legal review of the discharge case file, dated 6 October 1998, an assistant staff judge advocate found the file was legally sufficient and recommended that the proposed separation be approved.  On 8 October 1998, the discharge authority approved the recommended separation and directed that the applicant be honorably discharged, without probation and rehabilitation.

The applicant, while serving in the grade of senior airman, was discharged from the Air Force on 27 October 1998 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen (personality disorder), with an honorable discharge.  He served 5 years, 4 months and 25 days active duty.  He was assigned a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C (Involuntary discharge with a service characterization of honorable).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant states that the applicant was twice hospitalized with suicidal ideation and suicide attempt over a one-year period in the setting of marital discord.  He was diagnosed by psychiatrists at Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) with Borderline Personality Disorder that in their opinion rendered the applicant unsuitable for continued military service.  Their opinion that he was unsuitable for continued service was based on the recurrent nature of his suicidal ideation requiring hospitalization and their assessment that he was at risk for continued future recurrent suicidal ideation and attempts.  Borderline Personality Disorder is characterized by a pattern of instability in interpersonal relationships, self-image, emotion and marked impulsivity and the symptoms are often exacerbated by impending separation, divorce, or break-up of a significant relationship.  Although the family advocacy section of the McGuire AFB mental health clinic evaluated the applicant, he did not undergo the extensive evaluation at the McGuire Mental Health Clinic that he did while hospitalized at Walter Reed Army Medical Center to correlate with the findings of the WRAMC evaluation.  The applicant provides an incomplete copy of a December 2002 evaluation omitting the evaluating psychologist’s impressions and diagnoses.

The applicant’s superior duty performance is significant and indicates that his personality traits leading to the diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder did not impact his duty performance.  Were it not for the recurrent nature of his suicidal ideation under personal relational stress, his personality features would not be considered unsuiting for continued service.  However, with the demonstrated history of two hospitalizations for suicidal ideation, he is at increased risk for unpredictable recurrence under similar circumstances.  This risk is incompatible with the requirements of continued military service.

Action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.  The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted.

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

AFPC/DPPRSP recommends denial.  They believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  Accordingly, they concur with the BCMR Medical Consultant advisory and recommend his records remain the same.

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

AFPC/DPPAE states that the Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service,” is correct.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 21 November 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  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 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.  After reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s records are in error or that he has been the victim of an injustice.  His contentions are noted; however, in our opinion, the detailed comments provided by the appropriate Air Force offices adequately address those allegations.  Therefore, we agree with opinions and recommendations of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  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 this application in Executive Session on 29 January 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 14 Apr 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 2 Sep 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 6 Oct 03.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 12 Nov 03.
	Exhibit F.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Nov 03.

					Panel Chair