RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02473
            INDEX CODE:  100.06

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated to active duty or his reenlistment  eligibility  (RE)
code be changed to one  that  would  allow  him  to  reenlist  in  the
service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The heart of his statement rests  most  on  the  actual  code  he  was
assigned for discharge.  He firmly believes that the RE code of 2C  is
a gross misrepresentation of the facts.  He was clearly upset  by  the
outcome of the reclassification and all failed attempts that followed,
but he in no manner believe that it accurately reflects the true state
of affairs as they are documented.  If the findings on the part of the
psychologist were true, by no means would that  many  officers  pursue
helping him.  Actual  dysfunction,  on  the  level  described  by  the
psychologist,  would  render  very  little  chance  to   receive   the
insurmountable support that he had,  well  after  the  diagnosis  took
place.

He was told that the only option to resolve his situation was  to  see
the psychologist.  He could have declined this  option,  even  in  the
intermediate to late stages  of  out-processing.   This  was  a  clear
indication, at least from a clinical point of view, that there were no
grounds to remove  him  involuntarily,  as  stated  in  the  discharge
paperwork.  The discharge was a mutual decision on the part of Captain
S--- and himself and is evidenced by the opportunity presented to  him
by the group commander to remain in the Air Force, just days before he
left.  Even the psychologist set  forth  the  condition  that  he  was
suited to serve in the intelligence community.  On the  one  hand,  he
stated  his  professional  opinion  that  he  could   be   placed   in
intelligence and on the  other  hand,  he  found  no  alternative  but
discharge if he  did  not  get  placed  in  intelligence.   His  crisp
demarcation between being in intelligence and not  being  in  the  Air
Force at all is a contradiction in terms of what is being proposed  in
the 2C code.  This conflicting interpretation unavoidably resulted  in
his release from the Air Force entirely  because  it  fell  under  the
misleading 2C code  which  is  an  all-encompassing  title  for  other
dissimilar, diverse, and worse problems.  His disapproval  stems  from
these distinctions which were at the core of the discharge procedure.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement,
and extracts from his  military  personnel  records,  to  include  the
mental health evaluation and separation document.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 10  Sep  97  for  a
period of 4 years in the grade of airman first class.

On 11 Aug 98, the applicant’s commander  notified  him  that  she  was
recommending that the applicant be discharged because he was diagnosed
by a clinical psychologist  as  having  an  Adjustment  Disorder  with
depressed mood, as described in the Diagnostic and Statistical  Manual
of Mental Disorder (DSM-IV), which was so severe that his  ability  to
function effectively in the  military  environment  was  significantly
impaired.  The disorder was evidenced  by  his  increase  in  tension,
frustration, and depression.  The applicant was advised of his  rights
in the matter and that an honorable discharge  would  be  recommended.
The applicant indicated that he had been notified that  he  was  being
recommended for discharge.  He waived his rights  to  consult  counsel
and submit statements in his own behalf.

On 14 Aug 98, the  Office  of  the  Staff  Judge  Advocate  found  the
discharge case file to be legally sufficient and  concurred  with  the
commander’s recommendation for an honorable discharge.  On 19 Aug  98,
the discharge authority approved the  discharge  action  and  directed
that the applicant be honorably discharged.

On 21 Aug 98, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFI
36-3208 (Personality Disorder) and furnished an  honorable  discharge.
He was assigned an RE code of 2C and a separation code of JFX.  He had
served 11 months and 12 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and  noted  that
the applicant was unwilling  to  accept  reclassification  to  another
career field after flunking out of his promised field upon  enlistment
in the Air Force.  His growing frustration and  depression  over  this
situation along  with  his  expressed  desire  to  separate  from  the
military were  appropriately  met  by  the  commander-directed  mental
health evaluation (CDE).  According to  the  Medical  Consultant,  the
resulting administrative discharge and appropriate RE code  assignment
fit the circumstances  at  the  time,  and  nothing  provided  by  the
applicant in his application warranted granting his request.

In the Medical Consultant’s view, an inequity was apparent in  showing
the narrative reason for separation as “Personality Disorder,” and  it
should be changed to more properly identify  the  correct  reason  for
discharge.  Unfortunately, the current  Air  Force  Instruction  (AFI)
regulating separations for  mental  health  problems  does  not  allow
coding for other than “Personality Disorder,”  an  entirely  different
DSM-IV code sequence than that with which the applicant was diagnosed.
 It is not proper to apply an erroneous label to an individual because
of a recognized administrative shortfall, as occurred in this case.

The Medical Consultant is of the opinion that, in order to correct  an
injustice  of  improperly  labeling  the  applicant’s  disorder,   the
applicant’s  DD  Form  214,  Block  28,  should  be  changed  to  read
“Secretarial  Authority,”  with  the  corresponding  special   program
designator (SPD) code of  KFF.   While  this  recommended  change  can
result  in  an  RE  code  change  of  “3K,”  the  Medical   Consultant
recommended that it not be done as a valid psychiatric  diagnosis  was
made (Adjustment Disorder) and it cannot simply be discarded to  allow
the applicant’s return to the military.

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

The Separations Branch,  AFPC/DPPRS,  reviewed  this  application  and
indicated  that  they  concurred   with   the   Medical   Consultant’s
recommendation that the narrative reason for  separation  be  changed.
The also concurred with the recommendation that no change be  made  to
the applicant’s RE code.

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

The Special Programs and BCMR Manager Section,  AFPC/DPPAES,  reviewed
this application and indicated that the RE Code of “2C” is correct.

A complete copy of the DPPAES evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on  16
Nov 98 for review and response (Exhibit  F).   As  of  this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice.  We note that the  applicant
was  honorably  discharged  after  being  diagnosed  by   a   clinical
psychologist as having an adjustment disorder.  No evidence  has  been
presented which would lead us to believe that his discharge was  based
on  erroneous  information  or  that  his  commanders   abused   their
discretionary authority in  effecting  his  discharge.   Without  such
evidence, we are not inclined to favorably consider  his  request  for
reinstatement.  Notwithstanding  the  above,  we  do  agree  with  the
recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his  rationale
as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been  the  victim
of an injustice with regard to his narrative  reason  for  separation.
Furthermore, it appears that the applicant’s problems stemmed from his
frustration and depression subsequent to his failure to satisfactorily
complete the training required for  his  promised  career  field.   In
light of this, we also believe it would be in the interest of  justice
to afford him another opportunity for future military service  if  the
respective services  desire  to  enlist  him  based  on  their  needs.
Accordingly, we recommend that the applicant’s records be corrected as
indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that, on 21 Aug 98, he was
honorably discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208  (Secretarial
Authority),  with  a  separation  code  of  KFF  and  a   Reenlistment
Eligibility (RE) Code of “3K.”

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 18 Feb 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Member
      Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Aug 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated
                 23 Sep 98.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 28 Oct 98.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAES, dated 29 Oct 98.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 18 Nov 98.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair




AFBCMR 98-02473




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to , be corrected to show that on 21 Aug 98, he was
honorably discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Secretarial
Authority), with a separation code of KFF and a Reenlistment
Eligibility (RE) Code of “3K.”







    JOE G. LINEBERGER

    Director

    Air Force Review Boards Agency