RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-02324
            INDEX CODE:  100.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reason for discharge and his reenlistment  eligibility
(RE) code be changed so that he can return to the military.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He cannot say the discharge was in error at that time but  he  feels
it is unjust.  His discharge does not characterize  who  he  is  and
what he may be able to accomplish as he has done in  civilian  life.
He is not an immature, irresponsible person and therefore  knows  he
would be an asset to the service.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 10 Jul 87, the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force
(RegAF) for a period of six years in the grade of airman basic.

On 31 Aug and 1 Sep 87, applicant was evaluated in the Mental Health
Clinic after he consulted a chaplain concerning personal problems he
was having, i.e., he stated he was not eating or sleeping.

On 8 Sep 87, the following results of the evaluation by the Clinical
Psychologist were made:


      DSM III:   Axis I:  296.20 Major Depression, Single Episode

                       Axis II: Passive  and  Dependent  Personality
Features

On  18 Sep  87,  applicant  was  notified  that  his  commander  was
recommending  that  he  be  discharged  from  the  Air   Force   for
personality and adjustment disorders.  The  commander’s  reason  for
the proposed action was that applicant was seen and evaluated in the
Mental Health Clinic on 31 Aug and 1 Sep 87, and on 8 Sep 87, he was
admitted to the hospital for further evaluation.  He  was  diagnosed
as having adjustment, along with personality  disorders,  which  was
listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM III) of  Mental
Disorders, which were so severe that applicant’s ability to function
in a military environment  was  significantly  impaired.   Applicant
waived his right to consult counsel and did not submit statements in
his behalf.

On 23 Sep 87, the Assistant Staff Judge  Advocate  (SJA)  found  the
applicant’s file to be complete and  legally  sufficient.   The  SJA
concurred.

On 28 Sep 87, the applicant was furnished an entry level  separation
under the provisions of AFR 39-10 with an uncharacterized  character
of service; an RE  code  of  2C  (Involuntarily  separated  with  an
honorable   discharge;   or   entry   level    separation    without
characterization  of  service);  and  a  separation  code   of   JFX
(Conditions That Interfere  With  Military  Service-Not  Disability-
Character and Behavior Disorder).  He was credited with 2 months and
19 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and  indicated
that  there  appears  ample  evidence  to  support  the  applicant’s
immaturity detected in the course of his evaluations, the very issue
he raises now in his current  appeal.   He  apparently  entered  the
military to please his father who had served 12  years  himself  and
had misgivings from the very start, more so as the time came for his
actual entry on active duty.  He had frequent crying  episodes  over
his situation and carried his maladjustment to the point of  seeking
release by almost any means possible, even to include  consideration
of suicide.  While noting his enlistment age of  roughly  18  years,
this is not an unusual age for enlistees to present for duty and his
character  and  personality  makeup  simply  did  not  allow  proper
integration into the military lifestyle.  He does  not  contest  the
validity of his diagnoses that led to his separation  but  feels  it
was unjust, considering his later satisfactory progress in  civilian
life.  Nothing in the records or that is provided by  the  applicant
indicates an error was committed or injustice served in the type  of
discharge received.  Rather,  the  case  points  up  the  very  real
likelihood that all persons who seek military careers may  not  have
the wherewithal to be successful in  such  an  endeavor.   The  BCMR
Medical Consultant recommends that the application be denied.

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

The Military Personnel Management Specialist,  AFPC/DPPRS,  reviewed
this application and concurs  with  the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant’s
recommendation that the applicant’s narrative reason for  separation
and separation code should remain the same.  The applicant  provides
no evidence  to  dispute  the  diagnosis  of  personality  disorder.
Therefore, DPPRS recommends his request be denied.

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

The Special Programs & AFBCMR Manager,  AFPC/DPPAES,  also  reviewed
this application and indicated that a review of the applicant’s case
file was conducted and his RE code of 2C is correct.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to  applicant  on
15 Dec 00 for review and response.  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 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.   After  a
thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of   record   and   applicant’s
submission, we are not  persuaded  that  the  narrative  reason  for
discharge and his RE code should be changed.   His  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 his burden that he  has  suffered  either  an  error  or  an
injustice.  Therefore, we have no  basis  upon  which  to  recommend
favorable action on his appeal.

_________________________________________________________________






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 8 March 2001, under the provisions of Air Force
Instruction 36-2603:

                  Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
                  Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Aug 00, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 16 Oct
                   00.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 6 Nov 00.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAES, dated 21 Nov 00.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Dec 00.





                                   PATRICIA D. VESTAL
                                   Panel Chair