RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00064
                                        INDEX CODE 110.02
                                        COUNSEL: No

                                        HEARING DESIRED: No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reason for her  discharge,  “Personality  Disorder,”  be
removed from or changed on her DD Form 214.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

A DD Form 214 should not document someone’s mental  health  diagnosis.
As long as the existing narrative reason is a permanent  part  of  her
discharge record, she will be unable  to  support  herself  or  attain
employment in fields of her choosing and  qualification.  This  unjust
act by the Air Force will hinder her forever  and  cause  her  further
grief.

Her complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 1  May  96.  During
the period in question, she was assigned as a special agent to the Air
Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) at  Holloman  AFB,  NM.
The overall rating of her performance reports were: 5, 5, and 4.

Following her supervisor and co-worker’s observations of what appeared
to  be  suicidal  ideation,  persistent  mental  health   issues   and
depression, the applicant was seen for a  command-directed  evaluation
on five occasions between 29 Aug 00 and 22 Sep  00.   The  22  Sep  00
mental health evaluation diagnosed both an  adjustment  disorder  with
depressed mood and borderline personality disorder.   Her  personality
disorder was found  severe  enough  to  impair  her  function  in  the
military  and  discharge  was  recommended  with  mental  health  care
continued after separation.

As a result, the applicant’s commander notified her on 17  Oct  00  of
his  intent  to  recommend  honorable  discharge   for   a   condition
interfering with  military  service.  After  consulting  counsel,  the
applicant opted not to submit statements. On 19 Oct 00, the  case  was
found legally sufficient.

The applicant was honorably discharged in the grade of  senior  airman
for personality disorder on 15 Nov 00 with 4 years, 6  months  and  15
days of active service.  She received a separation program  designator
(SPD) code of “JFX” and a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code  of  “2C”
(Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant notes that while the  present  narrative
reason does reflect the underlying reason for her  discharge,  it  may
result in prejudgment and be unduly restrictive in the job market.  On
the  other  hand,  this   information   could   conceivably   preclude
inappropriate job placement.  The applicant could just  as  well  have
received the same type of discharge for  the  adjustment  disorder,  a
much less inflammatory diagnosis for future reference. The  Consultant
recommends that the narrative reason be changed  to  “Conditions  that
Interfere with Military Service, Mental Disorders,”  leaving  her  SPD
and RE codes unchanged.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Assistant NCOIC, Separation  Procedures  Section,  HQ  AFPC/DPPRS,
agrees that the narrative reason does reflect  the  underlying  reason
for her discharge and does affect her ability to gain employment.  The
SPD dictates the verbiage of the narrative reason.  For  this  reason,
her  narrative  reason  should  be  changed  to  “Conditions   Not   a
Disability” with an SPD code of “JFV.”

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the evaluations were forwarded to the applicant  on
13 Apr 01.  This office has received no additional comments  from  the
applicant.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After  weighing  the
available evidence and the recommendations of the  Medical  Consultant
and the Air  Force,  a  majority  of  the  Board  concludes  that  the
narrative reason should be amended to one with no reference to medical
problems. While  the  existing  SPD  code  and  narrative  reason  may
correctly reflect the underlying reason for the applicant’s discharge,
in this case it also may be unnecessarily inflammatory and restrictive
in  her  efforts  to  help  herself.  The  majority  notes  that   the
applicant’s  personality  disorder  was  diagnosed  as   “borderline.”
Further, it seems reasonable that the adjustment disorder, which  made
her unable to function in the  military  environment,  might  have  no
affect  in  civilian  employment.  The  Board  majority  believes  the
contested narrative reason may continue to penalize the applicant  and
the alternative narratives suggested by  the  Medical  Consultant  and
AFPC/DPPRS could still possibly raise  qualms  and  questions  in  the
minds of most prospective employers.  Therefore,  the  Board  majority
believes the applicant’s narrative  reason  for  discharge  should  be
changed to the  more  nonspecific  narrative  reason  of  “Secretarial
Authority,” and this we so recommend.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that, on 15 Nov 00 she was
discharged  under  the  provisions  of   AFI   36-3208,   “Secretarial
Authority,” and issued a separation program designator code of “JFF.”

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 5 June 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Ms. Rita S. Looney, Panel Chair
                  Mr. George Franklin, Member
                  Mr. William H. Anderson, Member

Mr. Anderson and  Mr.  Franklin  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as
recommended.  Ms. Looney voted to deny and has  submitted  a  Minority
Report, which is at Exhibit F. The following documentary evidence  was
considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Dec 00, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated
                       16 Feb 01.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 22 Mar 01.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 13 Apr 01.
   Exhibit F.  Minority Report.



                                   RITA S. LOONEY
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR 01-00064




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 15 November
2000, she was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208,
“Secretarial Authority,” and issued a separation program designator
code of “JFF.”





JOE G. LINEBERGER

Director

Air Force Review Boards Agency

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

SUBJECT:                             , AFBCMR Docket No. 01-00064

      The applicant requests that the narrative reason for her
discharge, “Personality Disorder,” be removed from or changed on her
DD Form 214.  The Air Force recommended that the narrative reason be
revised to the less inflammatory “Conditions Not a Disability” so that
the applicant would not be subjected to potential bias when seeking
employment.  In Executive Session on June 5, 2001, my colleagues went
one step further, concluding that the reason for discharge should be
the more innocuous “Secretarial Authority.”  Their rationale was that,
since the applicant’s personality disorder had been diagnosed as
borderline, and “Conditions Not a Disability” could still very likely
raise questions, the better solution would be to remove any reference
to a medical problem.  In this way, the applicant’s desire to be
shielded from adverse scrutiny would be better served.

      While the AFBCMR Medical Consultant also recommended that the
narrative reason be changed, he included a cogent point in his
discussion that I believe should be considered.  The Consultant
indicated that the present narrative reason might be unduly
restrictive and prejudicial in the job market.  However, he went on to
say that, “. . . the same information could conceivably preclude
inappropriate job placement [my emphasis] if openly revealed to
prospective employers.”  Suitability was an important consideration
with regard to the applicant continuing on active duty. It can also be
an important consideration in the employment process.  The type of
information the applicant desires to mask, if it is job related, may
interfere with or prevent effective service in the position applied
for or employed in, or may jeopardize an organization’s accomplishment
of its duties or responsibilities as it did while the applicant was on
active duty.  This is consistent with the premise that the only
factors prospective employers should be considering are those that are
job related.  Those that want the narrative reason for the applicant’s
discharge changed do not seem to believe that.  This is precisely the
basis for my concern and why I disagree with the decision of the Board
majority.

      The applicant states the narrative reason precludes her from
attaining employment in all fields for which her education, training
and experience qualify her, but provides no information as to whether
she has been denied employment because of the narrative reason.
However, based on the available documentation, I am unwilling to
change her narrative reason for her discharge unless there is evidence
that prospective employers are considering non-job related criteria.

      If the applicant is unable to obtain any gainful employment with
the current narrative reason, I would be willing to reconsider my
decision.  In the absence of such evidence, however, I believe the
applicant’s record should remain unchanged and recommend this appeal
be denied.




                                                   RITA S. LOONEY
                                                   Panel Chair