RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01950
                 INDEX CODE:  110

                 COUNSEL:  VFW

                 HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reason for separation on the DD Form 214, Certificate of
Release or Discharge  From  Active  Duty,  be  corrected  by  deleting
“Personality Disorder.”

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her discharge was classified as honorable and she feels that label was
given to her because she  filed  a  sexual  harassment  claim  against
members of her unit.  Applicant states that she  was  administratively
discharged for an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood.
 The term “Personality Disorder” has a very negative meaning  and  has
prevented her from moving forward with her life.

In support of her appeal, the applicant submits documentation from her
military personnel records and notes from her current  medical  record
from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).

Applicant’s submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from  the
applicant's military records, are contained in the letters prepared by
the  appropriate  offices  of  the  Air  Force   Office   of   Primary
Responsibility (OPR).  Accordingly, there is no need to  recite  these
facts in this Record of Proceedings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR states that the applicant appeals
for removal of an  established  mental  health  diagnosis,  using  the
information gained from her first mental health  evaluation  performed
in May 1996, but omitting the additional information obtained from her
in-patient  evaluation  later  that  same  year.   The  mental  health
provider who diagnosed the personality disorder  did  so  after  close
observation of the applicant in a controlled in-patient  setting,  and
there is no reason to  doubt  the  correctness  or  veracity  of  this
diagnosis.  While Axis II may contain secondary  diagnoses,  the  fact
that this was stated as a principle diagnosis attests to the fact that
it was considered of primary importance in explaining the  applicant’s
behavior  pattern  that  led  to  her  discharge.   It  would  not  be
appropriate to remove this diagnosis as requested  by  the  applicant.
Recommend the application be denied.

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

The Military Personnel Management Specialist, Separations  Branch,  HQ
AFPC/DPPRS, states that the case  has  been  reviewed  for  separation
processing and there  are  no  errors  or  irregularities  causing  an
injustice to the applicant.  The discharge complies with directives in
effect at the time of her discharge.  The applicant’s military service
was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.  Her  narrative  reason
for separation should not be changes.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
21 December 1998 for review and response within 30 days.  Counsel  for
the  applicant  submitted  a  response,  with  attachments,  which  is
attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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,  we  are  not
persuaded that the narrative reason for separation on the DD Form  214
should be  changed  or  deleted.   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 note that prior to the applicant’s separation from the  Air
Force, she received a commander-directed mental health evaluation  and
was diagnosed with an  adjustment  disorder  with  mixed  anxiety  and
depressed mood and also a borderline personality disorder, the  second
being the principle diagnosis and eventually the reason for discharge.
 We found no  evidence  of  error  or  injustice  in  the  applicant’s
separation.  It appears that she was under extensive observation in  a
controlled in-patient setting and we believe  she  was   afforded  due
process prior to separation.  We note that she is receiving  treatment
from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), to  include  counseling
for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) which she alleges was caused
by her time in the Air Force.  She  submits  current  medical  records
indicating her treatment for PTSD; however, this was not  in  evidence
prior to the applicant’s  discharge.   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.

_______________________________________________________________________
_____________________

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 3 June 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603.

                  Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member
                  Mr. Clarence D. Long III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Jun 98, w/atchs
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 16 Nov 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Dec 98.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 21 Dec 98.
   Exhibit F.  Counsel’s Letter, dated 29 Apr 99, w/atchs.




                                   MARTHA MAUST
                                   Panel Chair