RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS



IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01513

                 INDEX CODE 100.06  110.02
      XXXXXXXXX        COUNSEL: None

      XXXXXXXXX        HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  reenlistment  eligibility  (RE)  code  of   “2C”   (Involuntarily
discharged with honorable characterization) be  changed  to  one  that
would allow reinstatement or reenlistment and the narrative reason for
his discharge (Personality Disorder) be removed.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He provides a psychologist’s second opinion that he believes disproves
the narrative reason for his discharge.

A copy of applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was honorably discharged for personality disorder  on  2
Feb 00 with 1 year, 2 months and 9 days of active duty.

The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from  the
applicant's  military  records  (Exhibit  B),  are  contained  in  the
official documents provided in the applicant’s submission (Exhibit  A)
and in the letters prepared by the  appropriate  offices  of  the  Air
Force (Exhibits C, D and E).  Accordingly, there is no need to  recite
these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant notes that the applicant  was  initially
diagnosed as having an “adjustment disorder  with  mixed  anxiety  and
depressed mode. Further mental health evaluation resulted in a  change
of diagnosis to “personality disorder,” the ultimate  reason  for  the
applicant’s discharge.   The  Consultant  explains  that  the  command
influence alluded to by the applicant’s civilian psychologist  appears
to be simple clarification and not undue influence on  the  provider’s
judgment. The civilian provider who evaluated  the  applicant  in  the
military may not have been cognizant of official terminology that  Air
Force Instructions require to effect a  member’s  discharge  based  on
psychological conditions.  Valid psychological  testing  was  used  in
addition to an extended period of observation to arrive at a diagnosis
that  resulted  in  discharge  from  the  military  for   reasons   of
unsuitability.  While the applicant’s reactions to a career  field  he
found distasteful might be attributed to an  adjustment  disorder,  as
originally rendered, the character of that behavior was completely out
of keeping with  military  expectations  and  standards.   Having  the
benefit of observation over a longer period of time than that afforded
by the 16 Mar 00 single appointment evaluation, it is more likely than
not  that  the  diagnosis  of  personality  disorder  was   the   more
appropriate diagnosis  brought  out  in  response  to  the  rigors  of
military service. The Consultant recommends denial.

A copy of the complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Military Personnel Management Specialist, HQ  AFPC/DPPRS,  concurs
with the Consultant’s recommendation and recommends denial.

A copy of the complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

The Special Programs & AFBCMR Manager, HQ AFPC/DPPAES, advises the  RE
code is correct since the type of separation drove the  assignment  of
the RE code.

A copy of the complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the evaluations were forwarded to the applicant  on
25 Aug 00 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 probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review
of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we  are  not
persuaded that his RE code should be upgraded to  allow  reenlistment.
The 1 May 00 second opinion from the psychologist was noted;  however,
a majority of the Board further concludes that  the  narrative  reason
for discharge is appropriate. In this regard, the offices  of  primary
responsibility have adequately addressed the  applicant’s  contentions
and we agree with  their  opinions  and  recommendations.   The  Board
majority therefore adopts the rationale expressed as the basis for our
decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having
suffered either an error or an injustice. In view  of  the  above  and
absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the majority of the  Board
concludes that this appeal should be denied in its entirety.
_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the  panel  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 15 November 2000 under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Benedict A. Kausal IV, Chair
                 Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
                 Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member

The Board unanimously recommended denying the applicant’s request  for
an upgraded RE code. By a majority vote, the  Board  also  recommended
that the narrative reason remain unchanged. Mr. Carey voted to  change
the narrative reason to a more innocuous definition, but does not wish
to submit a Minority Report. The following  documentary  evidence  was
considered:

            Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 May 00, w/atchs.
            Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
            Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant,
                       dated 10 Jul 00.
            Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 8 Aug 00.
            Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAES, dated 14 Aug 00.
            Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 25 Aug 00.




                                   BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
                                   Chair


AFBCMR  00-01513





MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                                        FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY
RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXXXXXX

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.




                                                   JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                                   Director
                                                   Air Force Review
Boards Agency