RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00274

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation  be  changed  from  Personality
Disorder and his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was told that he was bi-polar by a military  counselor,  but  he
does not feel that he is and would like  to  reenlist  in  the  Air
Force (Exhibit A).

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 8 July 1998, applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  for  a
period of 4 years in the grade of airman first class (E-3/A1C).

On 9 Oct 98, applicant was counseled for failing a room inspection.
 He was counseled again for failure to  attend  an  appointment  on
24 October 1998.   On  7  January  1999,  he  was  administratively
reprimanded for failing a dormitory inspection for the fourth time.

On 5 February 1999, the  81  MDOS/SGOH1D,  Keesler  Medical  Center
Inpatient Mental Health Unit at Keesler AFB, MS evaluated applicant
due to suicidal  ideation.   They  found  his  pattern  of  extreme
dependence, mood fluctuations and suicidal  ideation  rendered  him
incapable of active duty  service.   His  prognosis  for  continued
service was poor and he would have remained a risk to himself,  and
his difficulties would have likely  affected  the  mission  of  his
command.  He was deemed unsuitable for continued  military  service
on  the  basis  of  the  above  diagnosis.   They  recommended   an
expeditious   entry-level   administrative   separation   due    to
applicant’s manifestation of poor  adaptability  to  such  severity
that it  precluded  adequate  military  service.   His  ability  to
function in the military effectively was significantly impaired and
continued stress of the active duty environment would  have  likely
resulted in danger to himself in the future.

On 17 February  1999,  the  squadron  section  commander  initiated
administrative  discharge  action   against   the   applicant   for
conditions that interfere with military service, mental  disorders.
The specific reasons for the proposed action were the incidents  of
misconduct cited above and the 5 February 1999  evaluation  by  the
Mental  Health  Unit,  which  diagnosed  the  applicant   with   an
adjustment  disorder.   It  was  determined  that   this   disorder
significantly impaired his ability to function effectively  in  the
military.  The applicant was advised of his right to counsel and to
submit statements on his  own  behalf.   He  waived  his  right  to
consult counsel and did not submit a statement on his  own  behalf.
On 17 February 99, the Administrative Actions Branch found the case
file legally sufficient  and  recommended  that  the  applicant  be
separated  with  an  honorable  service  characterization,  without
probation and rehabilitation (P&R), for a condition that interferes
with military service (mental disorder).  The  discharge  authority
directed applicant  be  discharged  with  an  honorable  discharge,
without P&R.

On 18 February 1999, the applicant was honorably  discharged  under
the provisions of AFI 36-3208, by reason of  personality  disorder,
and was issued an RE code of 2C (involuntarily  separated  with  an
honorable   discharge;   or    entry-level    separation    without
characterization of service).  He served 6 months and  11  days  on
active duty.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  AFBCMR  Medical  Consultant  states  that  the  applicant  was
discharged on 18 February 1999, after 6 months on active  duty  and
after being identified with an adjustment disorder.   He  indicated
that the applicant had  an  adjustment  disorder  with  personality
traits that interfered with his military  duties/training  and  was
the cause of his discharge.  The fact that the  applicant  did  not
have the longitudinal history of maladaptive behavior necessary  to
definitively diagnose a personality disorder does  not  negate  the
documented history of marked difficulty coping with military  life.
The narrative reason  for  separation  is  used  for  members  with
adjustment disorders and is not improper  in  this  instance.   The
case was properly evaluated as indicated by the evidence of  record
and there is no evidence of error or irregularity in the processing
of this case.  Action and disposition in this case are  proper  and
reflect compliance with Air Force  directives  that  implement  the
law.  It is his opinion that no change in the records is  warranted
and the application should be denied.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPRS  reviewed  this  application  and  commented  on  the
applicant’s  discharge.   They  found  that   the   discharge   was
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of  the
discharge regulation.  Additionally, that the discharge was  within
the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  They  also  noted
that the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify  any
errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE reviewed this application and found that his RE  code
2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry-
level separation without characterization of service,” is  correct.


A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 14 Jun 02 for review and comment within 30  days.   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.  Insufficient  relevant   evidence   has   been   presented   to
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice to warrant a change
in the applicant’s narrative reason for separation or his RE  code.
After reviewing the evidence of record, we are not  persuaded  that
the applicant’s records are in error or that he has been the victim
of an injustice.   His  contentions  are  noted;  however,  in  our
opinion, the detailed comments  provided  by  the  appropriate  Air
Force offices adequately address those allegations.  The  discharge
appears  to  be  in  compliance  with  the  governing   Air   Force
Instruction (AFI) and we find no  evidence  to  indicate  that  the
narrative reason  for  separation  and  the  assigned  reenlistment
eligibility (RE) code were inappropriate.  Therefore, we agree with
opinion and recommendation of the Medical Consultant and adopt  his
rationale as the basis for the conclusion that  the  applicant  has
not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of 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
AFBCMR   Docket   Number   02-00274   in   Executive   Session   on
1 August 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
      Mr. Albert F. Lowas Jr., Member
      Mr. William H. Anderson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, undated.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 11 Mar 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Apr 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 4 Jun 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Jun 02, w/atchs.




                                   JOHN L. ROBUCK
                                   Panel Chair