RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-02623
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for discharge be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The phrase “Character and Behavior Disorder” is unfair and unjust.  He
was young and immature  while  on  active  duty  and  made  some  poor
decisions.  He believes that he has paid for his bad decisions and has
matured a great deal.  Since his discharge, he has  attended  college,
earned a pilot’s license and gained  Federal  employment.   This  past
year, he joined the Army National Guard, and states that he  does  not
suffer from a character or behavior disorder.

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement,  a
copy of a letter to the Army National Guard Enlistment Review Board, a
copy of a request for a waiver, a character reference letter from  the
---  Army  National  Guard,  a  copy  of  his  Enlistment/Reenlistment
Document; and, a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate  of  Release  or
Discharge from Active Duty.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant’s personnel records do not contain separation  documentation
other than his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or  Discharge  from
Active Duty.  Prior to  enlisting  in  the  Air  Force  in  1990,  the
applicant enlisted in the Army Reserves, but received  an  entry-level
separation at his request, because he was not  assigned  the  military
occupation he requested (Military Police).  The applicant enlisted  in
the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on 17 January 1992 for a term
of 4 years.

He received non-judicial punishment (Article 15)  in  June  1993,  for
making a false official statement on an official accident report.   He
stated the right rear tire popped and came off, which was false.   The
applicant was referred for a mental health evaluation because while on
guard duty at an F-16 crash site, he chambered a round  of  ammunition
and aimed his rifle at someone.  He also became agitated and cursed at
the mental health technician while being  administered  a  battery  of
psychological tests.  The results  of  the  mental  health  evaluation
rendered  diagnoses  of  Impulse  Control   Disorder   Not   Otherwise
Specified, and Narcissistic Personality  Disorder.   The  psychiatrist
recommended an administrative discharge based on his diagnosis.  Based
on the events with his weapon and the results  of  the  mental  health
evaluation, he was permanently decertified from his  weapons  carrying
duties and from the Personnel Reliability Program and recommended  for
administrative  separation.   The   applicant   was   administratively
discharged  under  the  provisions  of  AFR   39-10,   (unsuitability,
Character and Behavior Disorder) on  17  August  1993.   He  served  1
year, 7 months and 1 day on active duty.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant  recommends  denial.   The  applicant  was
diagnosed with an Impulse Control Disorder and a Personality  Disorder
following behavior on duty that was dangerous and unacceptable.  As  a
result, he was discharged for unsuitability due to his  character  and
behavior disorder.  The applicant provided  his  letter  to  the  Army
National  Guard  Enlistment  Review  Board,  dated  10  January  2002,
requesting a waiver to enter the Army National Guard.  In this  letter
he states while in the Air Force,  he  lied  about  the  cause  of  an
accident,  stating  that  the  brakes  had  failed.   He  includes   a
memorandum confirming he is a member of the  Army  National  Guard  in
good standing since January 2002.  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.
Likewise, Impulse Control Disorders are unsuiting  conditions  subject
to administrative action by the commander that  are  characterized  by
failure to resist an impulse, drive, or temptation to perform  an  act
that is harmful to the person or others.  Personality Disorders  often
have as one of their prominent  features,  difficulties  with  impulse
control.  It is not clearly evident  in  the  available  documentation
which diagnosis was the predominant diagnosis.

Regardless, the  behaviors  and  both  diagnoses  were  unsuiting  for
continued service in the Air  Force  in  his  specialty.   Action  and
disposition  in  this  case  are  proper  and   equitable   reflecting
compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.

The Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  The applicant did not  submit  any  new
evidence or identify any errors or injustices  that  occurred  in  the
discharge processing.   He  provided  no  other  facts  warranting  an
upgrade of the discharge.  His records should remain the same and  his
request denied.

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
7 Mar 03, 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  an  error  or  injustice  to  warrant  changing  his
narrative reason for discharge.  After careful  consideration  of  the
available evidence, we found no indication that the actions  taken  to
effect his discharge were improper or contrary to  the  provisions  of
the governing regulations in effect at  the  time.   In  view  of  the
above, we agree with the opinions and recommendation of the Air  Force
offices of primary responsibility and adopt  their  rationale  as  the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of
an error or injustice.  Therefore, 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 Docket  Number  BC-2002-
02623 in Executive Session on 20 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
                 Mr. Kenneth Dumm, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Aug 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 31 Jan 03.
      Exhibit D  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 25 Feb 03.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Mar 03.





      JOHN L. ROBUCK
      Panel Chair