RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03084
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her discharge be changed to show a different reason for discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

It is against Federal law for any employer (i.e. USAF) to  reveal  the
reasons that an employee left the job, in any form.

In support of the appeal, applicant  submits  her  DD  Form  293,  two
copies of her DD Form 214, and a Department of Veterans Affairs Rating
Decision.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 30 August 2000, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  in
the grade of airman first class (E-3) for a period of  4  years.   Her
enlistment  documents  reveal  that  she  was  a  guaranteed  training
enlistee in the General Aptitude Area and, upon completion of training
for award of Air Force Specialty 3P031 (Security Forces), she would be
entitled to an enlistment bonus in the amount  of  $1,000.   Following
her successful completion of basic military  and  technical  training,
she was assigned to duties as an Entry Controller.

On 11 May 2001, the applicant received  a  Letter  of  Counseling  for
association with highly intoxicated  Marine  Corps  personnel  in  her
dorimtory room after visitation hours, the inappropriate touching of a
male security forces  member  during  horseplay,  having  unauthorized
reading material on post, and inattentive driving while on the  flight
line.  On 14 June 2001, she received a written counseling  for  having
unauthorized reading material on post.   On  21  July  2001,  she  was
issued a  Letter  of  Reprimand  for  being  disrespectful  towards  a
noncommissioned officer.

On 5 September 2001,  the  applicant  underwent  a  commander-directed
psychiatric  evaluation.   After  interviewing  the   applicant,   the
examining psychiatrist indicated it appeared  the  applicant  met  the
criteria for an Axis I diagnosis of Dysthymic Disorder of early  onset
(before age 21), existed prior to service  and  nonservice  disabling.
The psychiatrist further indicated that the applicant had  personality
disorder traits, most noteworthy being difficulties with interpersonal
function and  impulse  control.   These  were  considered  significant
enough to warrant a diagnosis of Personality  Disorder  not  otherwise
specified.  In a second Mental  Health  Evaluation  dated  18  October
2001, the examining psychiatrist confirmed the  above  diagnoses  with
the addition of an Axis IV diagnosis (Psychosocial  and  environmental
problems) of inability to adapt to military  culture.   The  examining
psychiatrist was of the opinion that it was in the best  interests  of
the  Air  Force  and  the  individual  that   action   be   taken   to
administratively separate her from the service.

On 14 November 2001, the applicant’s commander notified  her  that  he
was recommending discharge for a mental disorder.  She was advised  of
her rights.  The applicant acknowledged receipt  of  the  notification
and, after consulting military legal counsel, she waived her right  to
submit statements in her behalf.  On 14 November 2001,  the  commander
recommended the applicant be honorably discharged under the provisions
of AFPC 36-32 and AFI 36-3208 for the Convenience  of  the  Government
because of Conditions That Interfere  With  Military  Service,  Mental
Disorders.  Probation and rehabilitation (P&R) were  not  recommended.
The discharge case was reviewed by the base legal office and found  to
be legally sufficient to support discharge.  The  Discharge  Authority
directed an honorable discharge on 28 November 2001 without  P&R.   On
11 December 2001, the applicant was  honorably  discharged  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Personality Disorder).  She  had  served  1
year, 3 months and 12 days on active duty.  A reenlistment eligibility
(RE) code of 2C was assigned.

The applicant provided a copy of  a  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs
rating decision dated 27 August 2002, in which she was granted service
connection and a 10% compensable rating  based  on  the  diagnosis  of
dysthymia disorder, effective 12 December 2001.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant states that the  applicant  was  diagnosed
with Personality Disorder  Not  Otherwise  Specified  with  Cluster  B
traits  and  was  administratively  separated  because  of  continuing
behavior  consistent  with  this  diagnosis   that   interfered   with
performance of duty.  Personality disorders are  not  a  disease,  but
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 or disciplinary action by the individual’s
unit commander either due to misconduct or  unsuitability.   The  term
“Cluster B” traits includes the Antisocial, Borderline, Histrionic and
Narcissistic Personality Disorders.  Individuals with these  disorders
often appear dramatic, emotional, or  erractic.   The  DVA  psychiatry
examination also diagnosed abnormal personality traits as “borderline”
consistent with the findings of the Air Force  Psychiatrist.   At  the
time of  her  discharge,  her  existing  prior  to  service  Dysthymic
disorder was not of a severity that would  have  warranted  disability
discharge.   Her  behavior  and  misconduct  is  consistent  with  her
principle diagnosis of personality disorder.   Were  it  not  for  her
personality disorder and related misconduct, she would  have  remained
on active duty.

The BCMR Medical Consultant stated that action and disposition in this
case are proper and equitable reflecting  compliance  with  Air  Force
directives that implement the law.  The BCMR Medical Consultant is  of
the opinion that no change in the records is warranted.

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  substantive  requirements   of   the   discharge
regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion  of
the  discharge  authority.   Therefore,  they  recommend   denial   of
applicant’s request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 2 May 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations were  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response 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 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 she has been the victim of an injustice.  Her 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 its rationale as the  basis  for  the  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.   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 No. BC-2002-03084 in Executive Session on 25 June  2003,  under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
                 Mr. James E. Short, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Oct 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 30 Mar 03.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 17 Apr 03.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 May 03.




                                   PHILIP SHEUERMAN
                                   Panel Chair