RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00519
            INDEX CODE: 100.06

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code  be  changed  so  that  he  can
return to active duty with the same grade held at discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During the period February through June 2001,  he  was  going  through
significant  personal  issues  and  divorce  that   created   enormous
stressors on him.  At that time he was unable  or  unwilling  to  deal
with them effectively and he requested through his  psychologist  that
he be discharged administratively.  She (the  psychologist)  told  him
she would write it up to look as  bad  as  possible  so  he  would  be
discharged.  He believes that his behavior and problems at  that  time
were wrong but that he was going through  very  difficult  times.   He
believes the problems he had are not  unusual  of  the  scale  of  the
extremely personal and temporary circumstances  that  he  encountered.
The psychiatrist he had been seeing in the town of Grand Forks is  Dr.
T---.  He is also a military reservist augmentee.   Dr.  T---  had  no
negative comments or findings in  his  evaluation  that  would  effect
military service or continued military service.   Before  this  point,
his miliary record had been outstanding.

In  support  of  the  appeal,  applicant  submits  a   Mental   Health
Evaluation, a Psychiatric Evaluation, three character references,  and
a copy of his EPRs.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from  the
applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared  by
the appropriate offices  of  the  Air  Force  which  are  attached  at
Exhibits C, D, and E.

Applicant’s RE code has been administratively corrected to reflect  an
RE code of “2C”.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant  states  that  personality  disorders  are
lifelong patterns of maladjustment  in  the  individual’s  personality
structure which are not medically disqualifying or unfitting  but  may
render the individual unsuitable for further military service and  may
be cause for administrative action by the individual’s unit commander.
 Proper diagnosis of personality disorder  requires  observation  over
time and familiarity with the patient’s behavior at work and at  home.
The psychiatrist did not  have  this  information  and  thus,  he  had
deferred making an “Axis II”,  personality  diagnosis.   The  military
mental health providers had followed the applicant for several  months
and were fully aware of his  pattern  of  behavior  over  a  prolonged
period of time and were thus able to confidently make the diagnosis of
personality disorder.  Review of the medical records does not disclose
any evidence to support  correction  of  records  from  administrative
discharge.  This case was properly evaluated 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.  Therefore, the BCMR  Medical
Consultant is of  the  opinion  that  no  change  in  the  records  is
warranted and the application should be denied.

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

AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent  with
the  procedural  and  substantiive  requirements  of   the   discharge
regulation.   Additionally,  the  discharge  was  within   the   sound
discretion of the  discharge  authority.   Therefore,  they  recommend
denial of applicant’s request.

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

AFPC/DPPAE states that the Reenlistment Eligibility (RE)  code  of  2K
“Has been formally notified by the unit  commander  of  initiation  of
involuntary  separation  action”  is  incorrect.   It  should  be  2C,
“Involuntary separated with an honorable  discharge;  or  entry  level
separation without characterization of service”.

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

_________________________________________________________________




APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 21 June 2002, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to
applicant for review and response 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.  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.
Therefore, we agree with opinions and recommendations of the Air Force
and adopt their 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  in
Executive Session on 14 August 2002, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Panel Chair
                 Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Jr., Member
                 Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:



      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Feb 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 26 Apr 02.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 May 02.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 5 Jun 02.
      Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 21 Jun 02.




                             ALBERT F. LOWAS, JR.
                             Panel Chair