RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03457
                 INDEX CODE:  100/110

                 COUNSEL:  KEVIN B. MC DERMOTT

                 HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The narrative reason for separation be changed.

2.  The reenlistment eligibility code (RE) code be changed to  reflect
RE-1A vice RE-2C.

3.  She be reinstated into the Regular Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was falsely diagnosed as having borderline personality defect that
ended her stellar Air Force career.  In actuality, she  was  suffering
from  postpartum  depression  and  forced  to  undergo  a  regimen  of
psychiatric medication that caused her to lose not only her career but
her emotional, psychological, and physical well being for a period  of
time.

Applicant’s and counsel’s complete submission is attached  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 20  March  1991  for  a
period of four years in the grade of airman basic.

On 26  July  1994,  applicant  submitted  a  letter  to  the  Squadron
Commander stating that because of her concern  with  her  episodes  of
uncontrollable, violent rages at home, she can no loner guarantee  her
fitness  or  availability  for  duty  and  requested  the  commander’s
assistance for an administrative  discharge.   The  Chief,  Outpatient
Mental Health Services was in full support  of  this  action  and  was
ready to discuss questions or concerns regarding the applicant and her
medical condition.

On 19 September 1994 the applicant’s Squadron Commander  notified  her
that he (commander) was recommending discharge  from  the  U.  S.  Air
Force for Convenience of the Government - Mental Disorders  under  the
provisions of AFR 39-10, Section B, paragraph 5-11i(5).  The commander
stated that if his recommendation was  approved,  applicant’s  service
would be characterized as honorable.  The reason for  the  recommended
discharge was a Mental Health Evaluation Letter, dated 25 August 1994,
in which the applicant was diagnosed  with  the  following  disorders:
Occupational Problem (DSM III-R, Axis I,  V62.20),  Life  Circumstance
Problem  (DSM  III-R,  Axis  I,  V62.89)  and  Borderline  Personality
Disorder (DSM III-R, Axis II, 301.83).  This evaluation was  based  on
in-patient treatment from 1 July 1994 until 19 July  1994,  caused  by
frequent outbursts  of  extreme  anger  over  the  past  year.   These
disorders have  interfered  greatly  with  applicant’s  adaptation  to
military life and will continue to do so, they are so severe that  her
ability  to  function  effectively  in  the  military  environment  is
significantly impaired.  The Chief, Outpatient Mental Health Services,
has  recommended  applicant’s  discharge  from  the  Air  Force.   The
commander stated that  before  recommending  discharge  applicant  was
referred to Mental Health for counseling to assist her in dealing with
her problems.  She was diagnosed  as  having  a  personality  disorder
which was not likely to respond to short or  long  term  intervention.
The commander did  not  recommend  probation  and  rehabilitation  and
concurred with the findings of Mental Health.

Applicant acknowledged  receipt  of  the  Letter  of  Notification  on
19 September 1994 and on 20 September 1994 stated that  she  had  been
notified of the recommendation for discharge action for a  Personality
Disorder and of the specific basis of  the  proposed  discharge.   She
stated she did consult military legal counsel and was  not  submitting
statements for the commander’s consideration.

On 23 September 1994, the  Wing  Staff  Judge  Advocate  (100  ARW/JA)
reviewed  the  discharge  action  and  found  the  discharge   package
factually,  legally,  and  procedurally  sufficient  to  support   the
separation of  the  applicant  with  a  general  discharge.   The  SJA
recommended applicant’s separation with an honorable discharge without
probation and rehabilitation.

On 29  September  1994,  the  Discharge  Authority  (Wing  Commander),
reviewed the discharge file  concerning  applicant  and  approved  her
separation with an honorable discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-
10,  Section  B,  paragraph  5-11i(5)  for  mental  disorders  without
probation and rehabilitation.

Applicant was discharged from the Regular Air Force on 17 October 1994
under the provisions of AFI 36-3208  (Personality  Disorder)  with  an
honorable discharge.  She served 3 years, 6  months  and  28  days  of
active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, Medical  Advisor  SAF  Personnel
Council, states that the onset of the applicant’s problems within  six
weeks of her delivery clearly points to post-partum depression as  the
correct diagnosis as recorded by her treating military psychiatrist in
England.  This was accompanied by marked anxiety and irritability  and
a medication, Ativan, was prescribed in an attempt  to  control  these
aspects of  the  applicant’s  problem.   It  is  this  medication  the
applicant contends she inadvertently overtook leading to worsening  of
her symptoms and behavior.  Again, if she was abusing alcohol in  this
time-frame, the depressant effects of the medication would likely have
been  accentuated.   Contrary  to  the  implication  raised   by   the
applicant’s counsel, her prescribed medications were  appropriate  for
the circumstances  at  the  time.   While  post-partum  depression  is
normally a self-limited process, it is  not  uncommon  for  it  to  be
severe and to require medical intervention, as occurred in this  case,
in attempts to bring the individual back  into  a  functioning  state.
She was not ignored in follow-up  while  under  physicians’  care,  as
noted in frequent notes from June to September.

Her treating  psychiatrists  had  ample  opportunity  to  observe  the
applicant in both hospital and clinic environments and, based on these
observations, they established the diagnosis of borderline personality
disorder, looking at her lifelong (or at  least  10-year)  history  of
interpersonal  (high  school  turbulence,  e.g.)  and  alcohol-related
problems.  This history alone, had it been known at the  time  of  her
enlistment, would have precluded her acceptance into the  military  on
the  basis  of  a  pre-existing  mental  disorder.   No  inequity   or
impropriety is found in the records  reviewed  that  would  justify  a
change as requested by the applicant.  No change  in  the  records  is
warranted and the application should be denied.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

The Military Personnel Management Specialist, Programs and  Procedures
Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, states that this case  has  been  reviewed  for
separation processing  and  there  are  no  errors  or  irregularities
causing an injustice to the applicant.  The discharge  complies  with,
and was conducted according to AFI 36-3208, the appropriate directives
in effect at the time of her discharge.  Applicant  did  not  identify
any specific errors in the  discharge  processing  nor  provide  facts
which  warrant  reinstatement  to  active  duty  or  to   change   the
characterization (narrative reason) of her discharge.  They  recommend
the requests be denied.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

The Special Programs and BCMR Manager, HQ AFPC/DPPAES, states that the
reenlistment eligibility (RE)  code  “2C  is  correct.   The  type  of
discharge drove assignment of the RE code.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded  to  the  applicant
and her counsel on 30 March 1998 for review and response.

Counsel  submits  character   reference   statements   from   numerous
individuals and states that the  Maintenance  Superintendent  confirms
that  the  applicant’s  personality  was  altered  by  the  postpartum
condition  that  she  was  suffering  through  and  also  corroborates
applicant’s   contention   that   she   was   deceived   as   to   the
characterization (narrative reason) for her discharge.  The statements
are  being  offered  to   debunk   the   BCMR   Medical   Consultant’s
unsubstantiated statement that  possible  alcohol  misuse  would  have
contributed to the accentuated effect of the medication given  to  the
applicant.  It was clear that she in no way used  or  misused  alcohol
while  being  medicated  in  a  manner  that  was  inconsistent   with
recognized medical practices.

A complete copy  of  the  counsel’s  response,  with  attachments,  is
attached at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review
of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, to  include  the
letter from Dr. W---, a retired U.  S.  Navy  physician,  we  are  not
persuaded that the applicant’s narrative  reason  for  separation  and
reenlistment eligibility (RE) code should  be  changed  or,  that  she
should be reinstated into the Regular Air Force.  Her contentions  are
duly noted; however, we do  not  find  these  assertions,  in  and  by
themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided
by the Air Force.  We therefore agree with the recommendations of  the
Air Force and adopt the rationale  expressed  as  the  basis  for  our
decision that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden that  she
has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Therefore, we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

4.  The documentation provided with this case was sufficient  to  give
the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a  personal
appearance, with or without counsel, would not have  materially  added
to that understanding.  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 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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 5 August 1999, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603.

                  Ms. Rita S. Looney, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member
                  Ms. Marcia Jane Bachman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Oct 97, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 5 Mar 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 17 Mar 98.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAES, dated 18 Mar 98.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 Mar 98.
   Exhibit G.  Counsel’s Letter, dated 28 Apr 98, w/atchs.




                                   RITA S. LOONEY
                                   Panel Chair