RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01549
                             INDEX CODE 108.01  108.02  110.02
                                        COUNSEL: DAV

                                        HEARING DESIRED: Yes


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 1995 discharge for personality disorder be changed  to  a  medical
retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The evidence of record points more to a clearly defined  psychological
diagnosis and disorder warranting a rating  of  at  least  30%  and  a
medical retirement rather than a discharge for personality disorder.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  on  14  Dec  87,  and
reenlisted for four years on 8 Jan 93  for  a  period  of  four  years
During the period  in  question,  he  was  an  information  management
specialist assigned to the 5th Civil Engineer Squadron at  Minot  AFB,
ND.  His performance reports from 24 Dec 87 through 5 Feb  95  reflect
the following overall ratings:  9, 3 (New System), 4, 5, 5, 5,  5  and
4.

A 28 Sep 94 Minot AFB mental health entry indicates the applicant  did
not want to remain in the Air Force but could “not seem  to  obtain  a
legal/honorable discharge.”  He expressed problems with sleep, energy,
anger, duty performance and social involvement.  He had separated from
his wife 1½ years before and reported the pending divorce  was  not  a
source of distress.  The psychologist  indicated  that  the  applicant
seemed to “be fishing for a way to be separated from  the  Air  Force,
yet I cannot currently  find  a  mental  health  reason  to  recommend
separation.”  The applicant was seen again on 14 Nov 94  and  referred
for evaluation for treatment of occupational problem and to  rule  out
adjustment  disorder  with  mixed   emotional   features   vs.   major
depression.
A 15 Dec  94  mental  health  entry  reflects  a  diagnosis  of  major
depression,  moderate,  single  episode,  secondary  to   occupational
problem.  Histrionic traits were  noted.   The  applicant  was  taking
medication but was pessimistic regarding his future involvement in the
Air Force.  The psychologist mentioned  possible  consideration  by  a
Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).  On 26 Jan 95, the doctor reported  no
improvement in the applicant’s symptoms.

On 27 Jan 95 at the request of the applicant, the Minot  AFB  clinical
psychologist forwarded a letter to the Department of Veterans  Affairs
(DVA) advising them that he was treating the  applicant  for  a  major
depressive disorder and symptoms continued in  variety  and  severity.
On 22 Feb 95, the applicant reported the medication was  not  helping,
his anger and emotional distress were worsening, and he wanted out  of
the Air Force. The clinical psychologist recommended an MEB.

On 9 Mar 95, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR)  for  failing  to
report to his place of duty and failing to notify  his  supervisor  of
his whereabouts and status.  On 23 Mar 95, he was referred for another
psychiatric opinion.

On 28 Mar 95 the applicant reported a recent history of heavy drinking
and driving and a desire to leave the Air Force.   He  indicated  that
for two years he had been dissatisfied with his job and that he  could
not deal with  being  in  the  military.   The  clinical  psychiatrist
diagnosed him as having an adjustment disorder, chronic,  unspecified.
The psychiatrist believed the applicant’s condition would worsen  with
continued  military  service   and   recommended   an   administrative
discharge.  On 6 Apr 95, the applicant was referred to  the  Substance
Abuse Control Program for an evaluation and received  a  diagnosis  of
alcohol abuse.

Based on the  mental  health  diagnosis,  the  commander  advised  the
applicant on l8 Apr 02 of his intent to  recommend  an  administrative
honorable discharge. On 20  Apr  95,  after  consulting  counsel,  the
applicant waived his right for an administrative discharge board.   On
26  Apr  95,  the  commander  recommended  the  applicant’s  honorable
discharge for a  condition  that  interfered  with  military  service,
specifically a personality disorder.  On 1 May 95, the case was  found
legally sufficient.

The applicant was honorably discharged, with separation  pay,  in  the
grade of sergeant on 23 May 95 with 7 years, 5 months and 10  days  of
active service.  The narrative reason for the applicant’s discharge is
personality disorder.  Although his diagnosis was adjustment  disorder
rather  than  personality  disorder,  governing  regulations  make  no
provision  to  list  adjustment  disorder  as  a   narrative   reason.
Personality  disorder  is  used  for  all  unsuiting   mental   health
disorders.

In Mar and Apr  99,  civilian  medical  leave  certifications  to  his
civilian employer reflect the applicant  continued  to  have  problems
adjusting to a work environment and was  not  taking  the  medications
prescribed to him.  In Oct  00,  he  was  hospitalized  after  running
around semi-nude and tackling a postal worker.

According to a DVA rating dated 18 Sep 01, he is  rated  at  100%  for
adjustment disorder with depression and anxiety.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant notes that the  distinction  between  an
adjustment  disorder  and  major  depression  is  that  an  adjustment
disorder is an unsuiting,  non-compensable  condition  dealt  with  by
administrative separation, whereas  depression  can  be  an  unfitting
condition and, if unresponsive  to  treatment,  result  in  disability
discharge with compensation.  He  discusses  the  various  aspects  of
adjustment disorder, personality disorder and depression and  explains
the differences between the Air  Force  and  DVA  disability  systems.
Although action and disposition in this case were proper and equitable
and reflected compliance with Air Force directives that implement  the
law, the applicant did  not  receive  a  diagnosis  of  a  personality
disorder and the narrative reason on  the  DD  214  is  therefore  not
accurate.  The Consultant recommends changing the narrative reason  to
“Secretarial Authority”  but  believes  the  record  should  otherwise
remain unchanged.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPD notes that the applicant’s 5 Feb 95 Enlisted  Performance
Report (EPR) clearly illustrates that he  was  reasonably  capable  of
carrying out the responsibilities  of  his  office,  grade,  rank  and
rating and he was fully capable of performing these  duties  right  up
until the date of his release from active duty.  DPPD  recommends  the
requested relief be denied.

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 6 Sep 02 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 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 error or injustice to warrant a disability retirement
or discharge.  The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we
do not find these  assertions,  in  and  of  themselves,  sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by  the  AFBCMR  Medical
Consultant and the Air Force.  At the  time  of  his  separation,  the
applicant, who had a history of alcohol abuse, was diagnosed  with  an
adjustment disorder,  an  unsuiting,  non-compensable  condition,  not
major depression, an  unfitting  condition.   The  applicant  has  not
demonstrated that he was  incorrectly  diagnosed  or  discharged.   We
therefore adopt 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.  Absent persuasive  evidence  to  the
contrary, we conclude that  the  applicant’s  request  for  a  medical
retirement should be denied.

4.    Notwithstanding the above, we note there  is  no  provision  for
listing adjustment disorder in the narrative reason for administrative
separation.  Personality disorder is used  for  all  unsuiting  mental
health disorders, even in cases  such  as  the  applicant’s  when  the
diagnosis was adjustment disorder, not personality disorder.  Although
action and disposition of  the  applicant’s  case  appears  to  be  in
compliance with Air Force directives, he did not receive  a  diagnosis
of  a  personality  disorder,  therefore,  the  narrative  reason  for
separation is inaccurate.  We agree with the AFBCMR Medical Consultant
that the narrative reason should be changed to “Secretarial Authority”
and therefore recommend that the applicant’s records be  corrected  to
the extent indicated below.

5.    The applicant’s case is adequately documented  and  it  has  not
been shown that a personal appearance with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s)   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that, on 23 May  1995,  he
was  honorably  discharged  under  the  provisions  of  AFI   36-3208,
Secretarial Authority, and was issued a separation program  designator
code of “JFF.”

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 29 October 2002 under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
                 Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR  Docket  Number  02-
01549 was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 May 02, w/atchs.
  Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
  Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 19 Jun 02.
  Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 29 Aug 02.
  Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Sep 02.




                                   PEGGY E. GORDON
                                   Panel Chair




AFBCMR 02-01549




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 23 May 1995, he
was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208,
Secretarial Authority, and was issued a separation program designator
code of “JFF.”





   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency