RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00517
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation  be  changed  from  Character  and
Behavior Disorder  to  Secretarial  Authority,  with  a  corresponding
separation program designator (SPD) code.

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2K be changed to 1.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His actions were inappropriate.  Separation from the Air Force at that
time was the proper recommendation.  However,  to  be  ineligible  for
reenlistment and labeled with a “severe”  disorder  was  too  harsh  a
punishment for the immaturity of an eighteen  year  old.   During  his
evaluation, he stated that he did not  like  his  job  as  a  security
policeman.  The pressure of that particular military position combined
with his immaturity and an inability to understand the break-up  of  a
romantic  relationship,  resulted  in  his  crisis.   To   say   “this
adjustment reaction is due to his inability to adapt to military life”
is inaccurate.  His leadership positions  during  basic  training  and
technical school negate the diagnosis that “the member’s inability  to
function in the military environment is significantly impaired.”

Over the years, he has continued  to  be  elected  and  accepted  into
leadership positions.  His career has been  an  anchor  of  stability.
The last ten years he has been working for the  United  States  Postal
Service as a letter carrier.  In 1995, he enrolled at Montclair  State
University and had a 3.5 grade point average (GPA) before transferring
to Seton  Hall  University  in  1997.   A  law  degree  is  his  final
objective.

He disagrees with the military prognosis for his future in a  military
environment.  He has accepted responsibility  for  his  actions  as  a
teenager.  His post-service accomplishments in career, education,  and
volunteer service are evidence that he  has  outgrown  his  youth  and
immaturity.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal  statement
and several supportive statements.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  5  Dec  86  for  a
period of 4 years in the grade  of  airman  basic.   He  received  one
Airman Performance Report, in which the overall evaluation was 7.

On 21 May 87, the applicant was seen for a  squadron  directed  mental
health evaluation  as  a  result  of  two  violent  outbursts  at  the
squadron.  Also, it was noted that, on 16 May  87,  he  was  seen  for
making statements of suicidal intentions in the Emergency  Room.   The
crisis was precipitated by the break-up of  a  relationship  with  his
girlfriend.  The applicant  was  diagnosed  as  having  an  adjustment
disorder with disturbance of conduct.  The  evaluator  indicated  that
the adjustment problems  the  applicant  was  experiencing  definitely
interfered with his duty performance and conduct and was considered so
severe that the his ability to function in  the  military  environment
was significantly  impaired.   A  recommendation  was  made  that  the
applicant be considered for administrative  separation  from  the  Air
Force.

On 25 Jun 87, the applicant’s  commander  notified  him  that  he  was
recommending that the applicant  be  discharged  for  conditions  that
interfere with military service, specifically, character and  behavior
disorders.  The applicant was advised of his rights in the matter  and
that an honorable discharge would be recommended.

On 6 Jul 87,  the  Office  of  the  Staff  Judge  Advocate  found  the
discharge case file to be legally sufficient and recommended that  the
applicant be discharged  with  an  honorable  discharge,  without  the
opportunity for probation and rehabilitation.

On 9 Jul 87, the discharge authority approved the discharge action and
directed that  the  applicant  be  furnished  an  honorable  discharge
without the opportunity for probation and rehabilitation.

On 13 Jul 87, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR
39-10  (Conditions  That  Interfere  With  Military  Service   -   Not
Disability -  Character  and  Behavior  Disorder)  with  an  honorable
discharge.  He was assigned an RE code of 2K and a separation code  of
JFX.  He had served 7 months and 9 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and  recommended
denial.  The Medical Consultant noted that since  his  discharge,  the
applicant has done well in the  civilian  sector,  maintaining  stable
employment  for  10  years  and  assuming  responsible  positions   of
leadership in his union activities.  The Medical Consultant also noted
that the applicant provided a letter from  his  treating  psychiatrist
who indicated that the applicant had been under his care since Nov 94.

The Medical Consultant indicated that, while the applicant  should  be
commended on his many accomplishments in his post-service  years,  the
fact remains that  the  applicant’s  discharge  was  prompted  by  his
failure to adapt to the rigors of military life, which, by definition,
amounted  to  having  a  valid  diagnosis  of   adjustment   disorder.
According to the Medical Consultant, it would be improper as  well  as
unethical to simply remove this valid diagnosis from his records.  The
applicant’s  continuing   requirement   for   outpatient   psychiatric
counseling  underscores  an  ongoing  difficulty  dealing  with   life
circumstances, and it would likely not be beneficial to allow  him  to
return to a military setting with its unique stresses.

A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is  at  Exhibit
C.

The  Programs  and  Procedures  Branch,  AFPC/DPPRS,   reviewed   this
application and recommended denial.  According to DPPRS, there were no
errors or irregularities causing an injustice to the  applicant.   The
discharge complied with the appropriate directives in  effect  at  the
time of his discharge.  The applicant did not  identify  any  specific
errors in the discharge processing nor provided facts which  warranted
a change in his reason for separation or RE and separation codes.

A complete copy of the DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant  on  3
Aug 98 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  We took notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case.
However, we find it insufficient to override the rationale provided by
the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs).  The  evidence
of record reflects that the applicant was honorably discharged  for  a
character and  behavior  disorder.   After  reviewing  the  facts  and
circumstances of this case, we find no evidence that  the  applicant’s
substantial rights were violated, that the information used as a basis
for his separation was erroneous, or that his superiors  abused  their
discretionary authority.  In view of the above, and in the absence  of
evidence to the  contrary,  we  adopt  the  Air  Force  rationale  and
conclude that no basis exists upon which  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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 28 Jan 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
      Mr. Kenneth L. Reinertson, Member
      Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 May 98, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated
                4 Jun 98.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 Jul 98.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 3 Aug 98.




                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Panel Chair