THIRD ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02068-4
		INDEX CODE:  110.03

		COUNSEL:  NONE 

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code and narrative reason for separation be changed.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on 5 Jul 95 for a term of 4 years.  On 14 Nov 00, he was notified by his commander that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force due to a condition that interferes with military service, specifically a mental disorder.  The reason for this action was that he was diagnosed with a personality disorder comprised of borderline, passive-aggressive and avoidant personality traits.  His disorder was determined to be so severe that it significantly impaired his ability to function effectively in the military environment.  He was advised of his rights in this matter.  On 15 Dec 00, he was administratively discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, (personality disorder), with an honorable discharge and was issued a RE code of 2C “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service.”  He served 5 years, 4 months and 11 days total active service. 

On 7 Oct 03, a DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty was completed to correct the applicant’s DD Form 214, block 23, from “released from active duty” to “discharge.”

On 8 Mar 04, the applicant's request to change his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code and his narrative reason for discharge was considered and denied by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit I. 

On 31 Jan 04, the applicant submitted additional supporting documentation through his Congressman.  In his request, he provided a statement from his physician, who stated that he would more likely give a deferred diagnosis at this point regarding any kind of psychiatric or psychological diagnosis.  His physician also stated that if his history as given to him is accurate, it sounds as if the applicant might be a very suitable candidate for resumption of active duty in the military.  The applicant’s request for reconsideration was considered and denied by the Board on 29 Jun 04.  For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s request, and the rationale of the decision by the Board, see the Addendum to Record of Proceedings at Exhibit K.

On 6 Aug 04, the applicant submitted additional supporting documentation through his Congressman.  He provided two statements from his physicians.  The psychologist stated there appeared to have been a Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) of somewhat marginal validity, with the client attempting to place himself in an overly positive light.  The profile was formulated using the elevation of the Mania scale, with a T score of 65.  He further stated that at that time no clinical diagnosis would be assigned based on this clinical profile.  The psychiatrist stated neither his evaluation nor that of the psychological consultant could support a diagnosis of personality disorder. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s request, and the rationale of the decision by the Board, see the Second Addendum to Record of Proceedings at Exhibit M.

On 22 Jun 06, the applicant submitted additional supporting documentation for consideration. He provided a personal statement, DD Form 2808, report of Medical Examination, DD Form 2807, Report of Medical History, and a copy of a Psychiatric Evaluation.  The Psychiatrist states he did not find the applicant to harbor any psychiatric illness or personality disorder.  He has behaved responsibly during the past six years since discharge, evinces a normal mental status examination, and has had a psychological evaluation that does not indicate the presence of any clinically significant psychopathology.  His prognosis for emotionally stable, productive behavior is good.

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

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The BCMR Medical Consultant states the applicant reports that he lied about his mental problems in order to get out of the Air Force.  Unfortunately, it is unclear if he was untruthful then or now or both.  The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory following separation was noted for an attempt to portray himself in a more favorable light.  However, even with a high level of defensiveness, personality traits that were associated with his in-service problems were detected by this testing and reported by the examining psychologist.  

The fact that a Navy reviewer has recommended granting a waiver for enlistment into the Navy based on the MEPS exam does not establish a basis for the Air Force to do the same.  The reviewer opines that members who decide they no longer want to be in the service and falsely report or exaggerate psychological symptoms to get out of their military commitment are not good candidates for reentry.  This is not a character trait or behavioral response to stress that is desirable in members of the military services who are required to endure unique demands and where opting out may jeopardize the military mission.  

His history of personal problems that resulted in significant impairment of occupational functioning combined with the results of the psychological evaluation indicate that he is at risk for recurrent problems under similar circumstances of military occupational and personal stress.  A history of a personality disorder/traits or adjustment disorder severe enough to warrant administrative discharge is permanently disqualifying for reenlistment into the military.  Action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law and no change in the record is warranted.

The Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit N.  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 15 May 07, for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After again reviewing this application and the evidence provided in support of his appeal, to include physical and psychological consults from the Navy, we remain unpersuaded that the applicant’s RE code or narrative reason for separation should be changed.  We note that the RE code that was assigned at the time of his separation accurately reflects the circumstances of his separation, and evidence has not been provided that would lead us to believe otherwise.  Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we again 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 probable 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-2003-02068 in Executive Session on 2 Aug 07 and on 14 Dec 07, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit I.  Record of Proceedings, dated 8 Mar 04,
				  with Exhibits A-H.
    Exhibit K.  Record of Proceedings, dated 29 Jun 04,
				  with Exhibit J.
	Exhibit M.  Second Addendum to Record of Proceedings, 
		dated 22 Nov 04, w/atchs.
	Exhibit N.  DD Form 14, dated 22 Jun 06, w/atchs.
	Exhibit O.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 18 Apr 07.
	Exhibit P.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 May 07, w/atch.