RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01065
		INDEX CODE:  110.02
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: XXXXXXXXXX 

	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was informed that his narrative reason for separation would reflect he was discharege for medical reasons.  This would automatically change the separation code and RE code.  His condition is not and should not be categorized as a personality disorder.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on 5 March 2002.  

On 20 February 2004, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force for a condition that interferes with military service; specifically for mental disorders.  The basis for the action was on 22 July 2003, the applicant was diagnosed with a borderline personality disorder, which was determined severe enough that his ability to function in the military was significantly impaired and he did not meet retention standards for continued service in the military.

He was advised of his rights in this matter.  He consulted counsel, and elected not to submit statements in his own behalf.  The discharge authority approved the discharge and directed an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation.  On 5 March 2004, he was discharged with an honorable discharge, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, (personality disorder).  He received an RE code of 2C “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service”.  He served two years and one day total active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The applicant was administratively discharged for unsuitability due to adjustment disorder and personality traits versus disorder.  He was formally diagnosed with borderline personality disorder during an inpatient evaluation in July 2003, and histrionic traits, but not a personality disorder in November 2003.  Regardless, both mental health professionals identified significant maladaptive personality features that were the major contributors to his symptoms of adjustment disorder.  Adjustment disorder and personality disorder or maladaptive personality traits listed on the formal psychiatric diagnosis on Axis II, are conditions that alone or together may render an individual unsuitable for military service.  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 (including suicidal ideation and behaviors).  Adjustment disorder when severe enough is unsuiting for continued military service and cause for administrative discharge.  Personality disorders or maladaptive traits are not a disease, but lifelong patterns of maladjustment in the individual’s personality structure and coping skills which are not medically disqualifying or unfitting but may render the individual unsuitable for further military service and may be cause for administrative action by the individual’s unit commander.  Personality disorders/traits are frequently exacerbated by stress and frequently present with symptoms consistent with adjustment disorder.  In addition to adjustment disorder, personality disorder also predisposes individuals to the development of other conditions including depression.

On the applicant’s DD 214, the narrative reason for discharge is listed as personality disorder even though the applicant’s primary diagnosis was adjustment disorder.  The DoD uses the term “personality disorder” administratively to include all unsuiting character and behavior disorders including adjustment disorder, personality disorders, and impulse control disorders.  In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders the term “personality disorder” is used in a specific, defined manner to classify specific disorders of personality that do not include adjustment disorder or impulse control disorder occurring in the absence of personality disorder or traits.  However, the applicant was also diagnosed with a personality disorder and maladaptive personality traits that significantly contributed to his development of adjustment disorder.  Therefore the narrative reason for discharge on the DD 214 is accurate.

Action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.

The 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 Nov 04, for review and comment 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case.  However, we agree with the BCMR Medical Consultant’s opinions and recommendation and adopt the consultant’s rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of 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 Docket Number BC-2004-01065 in Executive Session on 13 January 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 30 Mar 04.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 15 Nov 04.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 May 04.