RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02081
		INDEX CODE:  110.03

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C be changed to allow enlistment into the Air National Guard (ANG).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

With less than a year left on his enlistment he was ordered to a one-year remote assignment in Korea.  He declined but the orders were reissued.  Once in Korea, he reenlisted and applied for an extension to his one-year tour.  The extension was approved but his tour was cut short and he was forced to relocate, after many promises by his supervisor to the contrary, to Seymour Johnson AFB in North Carolina.  Upon arrival at his new duty station, he spoke with his first sergeant about getting orders back to Korea so he could consummate wedding plans and complete Visa actions for his fiancé.  He was told he was stuck for two years and to “suck it up.”  He asked to see his commander, was denied this opportunity, and was sent instead to mental health where he explained how he felt about enduring two Permanent Change of Station (PCS) moves in a year and a half.  After the evaluation, he was told he was being separated and was harassed by his first sergeant that speeded up his separation action.  He was young and immature and let his emotions cloud his vision.  He has since matured and would love to serve his country as he misses the pride in wearing the uniform.  He points to his attached Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) as evidence he was a model airman.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a personal statement, a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and copies of his EPR’s covering the time 2 April 1997 through 11 December 2000.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty on 2 April 1997.  His EPR’s prior to 2001 reflected excellent duty performance as evidenced by ratings of 5 on a scale of 5.  He was administratively discharged for unsuitability (Adjustment Disorder and Personality) on 31 July 2001 after four years, three months and twenty-nine days of service.  He was serving in the grade of senior airman (E-4) at the time of his separation.  He received an honorable discharge with a RE code of 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge.”

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  He notes that prior to 2001 the applicant had a documented history of excellent duty performance.  He was decertified from the Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) apparently in part, due to his admission of experimental use of marijuana use prior to entering active duty that he had not disclosed at his enlistment.  He was angry at things not going his way and behaved in a manner that disrupted his unit, specifically by making threats that were not otherwise specified.  He developed symptoms of depressed mood diagnosed as Adjustment Disorder.  The mental health evaluation in June 2001 also concluded that he demonstrated maladaptive traits (immature and obsessive compulsive) of sufficient severity to constitute a diagnosis of a Personality Disorder severe enough to warrant an administrative discharge from the Air Force for unsuitability.

The record documents Adjustment Disorder and Personality Disorder as conditions not medically disqualifying or unfitting but may render the individual unsuitable for further military service and may be cause for administrative action.  Adjustment Disorder is characterized by marked psychological distress in response to identifiable stressors that overcome the individual’s ability to cope and is frequently associated with significant impairment in social and occupational functioning.  The emotional and behavioral responses may be in excess of what would normally be expected given the nature of the stressors.  Manifestations can include depressed mood, anxiety, and disturbances of conduct.  A key feature of Adjustment Disorder is that the condition resolves itself with relief of the stressors.  Personality disorders are lifelong patterns of maladjustment in the individual’s personality structure, which are frequently exacerbated by stress and may present with symptoms consistent with Adjustment Disorder.

The fact that he is functioning well at this time confirms his diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder, however it does not predict that he will respond well to the stresses of military service combined with personal stressors or frustrations.  The presence of maladaptive traits as described above combined with his past experience is predictive of an increased risk for recurrence of difficulties under similar stressful circumstances.  His otherwise superior duty performance does not overcome the facts of the record documenting unsuitability for continued military service, in particular the making of threats against other in his unit, but clearly earned him the Honorable characterization of service he received.  Action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.

The Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRSP recommends denial.  His commander notified him on 16 July 2001 that he was being recommended for discharge due to a condition that interferes with military service, specifically a mental disorder.  His disorder hampered the mission effectiveness of his unit and made him unable to continue the sensitive nature of his duties.  DPPRSP states the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  Additionally, he provided no facts warranting a change in his discharge.  DPPRSP holds that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discharge authorities discretion.

DPPRSP’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 31 October 2003 for review and comment within 30 days.  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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we do not find his uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or injustice.  His otherwise superior duty performance does not overcome the facts of the record documenting unsuitability for continued service, in particular the making of threats against others in his unit.  His performance did, however, earn him the “Honorable” characterization of service he received.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive 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 issue(s) 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-02081 in Executive Session on 10 December 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Jun 03, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 12 Sep 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 7 Oct 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Oct 03.