RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00554
		INDEX CODE:  110.02
		COUNSEL: 

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative separation code (JFX) be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not offered all discharge options.  There were extenuating circumstances in his case.  His discharge was unjust.

In support of the application, the applicant submits documentation, including but not limited to, copies of excerpts from his military personnel file, personal statements, and character reference letters.  The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 29 June 1987, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 18 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four (4) years.  After completing basic military training, he was assigned to duties as an apprentice services specialist.  

On 9 February 1988, the applicant was admitted to hospital psychiatric services.  Following exam, a diagnosis of personality disorder was rendered.  The examiner recommended the applicant be expeditiously administratively separated either as a fraudulent enlistment, or as a severe personality disorder in accordance with AFR 39-10.  

On 25 February 1988 the applicant’s commander notified the applicant that he was recommending the applicant be separated from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10 because of the mental health diagnosis that significantly impaired his ability to function in the military.  The applicant was advised of his rights.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification, and after consulting military legal counsel, submitted a statement on his own behalf.  The commander thereafter initiated a recommendation for the applicant’s separation with an honorable discharge.

In a legal review of the discharge case file dated 8 March 1988, the Staff Judge Advocate found the file was legally sufficient and concurred with the commander’s recommendation that the applicant be separated from the service with an honorable discharge.  On 9 March 1988, the discharge authority approved the recommended separation and directed the applicant be discharged for the reasons recommended by his commander, without the offer of probation and rehabilitation.

On 11 March 1988, the applicant was honorably discharged because of personality disorder with a reentry code of 2C and a separation code of JFX.  Reentry code 2C is applied in those cases where the member is involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge.  The separation code is directly related to the reason and authority for his separation.  He had served 8 months and 13 days on active duty.

On 19 February 1998, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFRDB) requesting the reason for his discharge and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed.  The AFRDB determined that a change to the applicant’s discharge was not warranted.  The AFDRB Examiner’s brief is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant opined no change is warranted to the applicant’s record.  The BCMR Medical Consultant stated the military records document a character and behavior (personality) disorder.  In the a setting of job dissatisfaction, occupational difficulties including numerous counselings, difficulty completing his career development course (CDC) and martial discord, the applicant was hospitalized for suicidal ideation.  The hospitalization narrative summary is detailed and, in the opinion of the BCMR Medical Consultant, supports his discharge diagnosis of Personality Disorder with a recommendation for administrative discharge due to unsuitability.  The BCMR Mecical Consultant concludes the action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.  A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 18 June 2004 for review and comment.  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 that would warrant a change to his narrative separation code.  We agree with the opinion and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant that the narrative separation code which was assigned at the time of his separation accurately reflects his circumstances at the time of his separation and evidence has not been provided that would lead us to believe otherwise.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence indicating that the information contained in his records is erroneous or unjust 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 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-2004-00554 in Executive Session on 30 September 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Jan 04, with atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 14 June 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jun 04.