RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03341

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reason for his separation (personality  disorder)  be  removed
from his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active  Duty,
and his separation code and Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The narrative reason for his separation is  preventing  him  from  bettering
himself.

The applicant states that although the narrative reason for  his  separation
was a personality disorder, his wife and children had  left  him  in  Alaska
due to divorce and he wanted to get out of the military  and  move  back  to
Florida to be with his children.  At the  time  of  his  discharge,  he  had
three years left on his four-year assignment.  He is currently working as  a
civilian contractor doing the same job he had while on active duty,  working
under former supervisors.  He began the job two months after his  discharge.
 He recently tried to join the Air Force Reserve  and  was  denied.   He  is
currently enrolled in the  Gulf  Coast  Law  Enforcement  Academy  and  will
graduate in May 2003.

In support of the appeal, the applicant  submits  a  letter  from  the  Gulf
Coast Community College and a statement from his employer.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  16  August  1999  for  a
period of six years.


On 26 March 2001, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for  violation  of
Article 92 (failure to obey written regulations  and  technical  orders)  of
the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  Specifically, on  27  February
2001, while filling his refueling unit 11 at Oscar pump house, he  purposely
defeated the dead man safety device by blocking it open.  This  allowed  his
truck to continue to fill unattended, while he left the fill stand area  and
walked to the pump house.

He underwent a command-directed mental health evaluation on  11 April  2001,
and was diagnosed  by  a  clinical  psychiatrist  as  having  an  adjustment
disorder with mixed anxiety with depressed mood  and  dependent  personality
traits.  The psychiatrist was also  of  the  opinion  that  the  applicant’s
adjustment and personality disorders were so  severe  that  his  ability  to
function  in  the  military  environment  was  significantly  impaired   and
recommended his administrative discharge.

On 23 April 2001, the commander notified him that he  was  recommending  his
administrative discharge  for  mental  disorders.   Specifically,  that  the
applicant’s personality disorder had resulted in his inability to  adapt  to
military life.  The applicant waived his right to consult legal counsel  and
did not submit any matters for consideration.

The discharge authority approved the recommended discharge action on  1  May
2001.

On 8 May 2001, he was honorably discharged under the provisions of  AFI  36-
3208, by reason of Personality Disorder, and issued  a  Separation  Code  of
JFX and RE code 2C (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge;  or
entry level separation without characterization of service).   He  completed
5 years, 6 months, and 14 days of active service.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The BCMR  Medical  Consultant  recommends  the  application  be  denied  and
states, in part,  that  although  the  applicant’s  maladaptive  personality
traits were not judged to be severe enough to warrant a formal diagnosis  of
a personality disorder, they significantly contributed to his  behavior  and
the  development  of  his  adjustment  disorder.   While  the  applicant  is
concerned that the narrative reason for his separation will  interfere  with
his pursuit of a career in law enforcement, the facts of  the  circumstances
surrounding his administrative discharge cannot  be  changed.   However,  he
may seek psychological evaluation and testing  to  support  his  application
for employment in civilian law enforcement.  The action and  disposition  in
the case are proper and  equitable  reflecting  compliance  with  Air  Force
directives.

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states,  in  part,  that
the  discharge  was  consistent  with   the   procedural   and   substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation.  In addition,  the  discharge  was
within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  The  applicant  did
not submit any new evidence  or  identify  any  errors  or  injustices  that
occurred in the discharge process.

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPAE  states,  in  part,  that  the  RE  code  of  2C,  “Involuntarily
separated with an honorable discharge; or  entry  level  separation  without
characterization of service,” is correct.

The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete  copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 4 April 2003 for review and response within  30  days.   As  of
this date,  this  office  has  received  no  response  from  the  applicant.
However, a civilian psychologist has provided a  statement  indicating  that
it is highly unlikely that an individual with a personality  disorder  would
be able to perform five and a half  years  in  the  military  and  not  have
numerous problems.   The  psychologist  also  states  that  the  applicant’s
marriage was in crisis and the only way  that  he  knew  to  return  to  the
continental United States was to attempt to get a mental  health  diagnosis;
however, he had no idea that such a diagnosis would continue to have a long-
term impact upon his future job opportunities.

A copy of the psychologist’s statement is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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  changing  the  narrative  reason
for the applicant’s  separation  and  separation  code.   After  a  thorough
review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, a  majority  of
the Board is not persuaded that relief should be granted.  In this  respect,
a majority of the Board notes that the applicant was referred for  a  mental
health evaluation based  on  his  lack  of  attention  to  detail,  defiance
towards  supervisors,  inappropriate  displays  of  anger,   and   emotional
distress.  He was subsequently diagnosed  with an  adjustment  disorder  and
administratively discharged  in  2001.   The  applicant  contends  that  the
reason for his separation (personality  disorder)  is  preventing  him  from
becoming a  police  officer.   Current  Air  Force  Instructions  regulating
separations for mental health problems do not allow coding  for  other  than
“Personality Disorder,” an entirely  different  DSM-IV  code  sequence  from
that with which the applicant was diagnosed.  However,  a  majority  of  the
Board does not believe this administrative shortfall and any  concerns  this
Board may have regarding the erroneous labeling  of  the  applicant,  should
outweigh our caution in disturbing the record in the name of the  Office  of
the Secretary of  the  Air  Force  when  there  is  evidence  the  applicant
attacked two co-workers while on active duty.  It is uncontested that  while
on  active  duty,  the  applicant  had  a  disorder  so   severe   that   it
significantly  impaired  his  ability  to  function  in  the  military   and
warranted his separation.  Although he was not diagnosed with a  personality
disorder because his maladaptive personality traits were not  judged  severe
enough, they did impair his ability to function effectively in the  military
environment.  The circumstances surrounding his separation remain  unchanged
and should be appropriately documented in his records - especially since  he
desires to enter civilian law enforcement.  More importantly, a majority  of
the Board is  extremely  uncomfortable  with  using  the  term  “Secretarial
Authority” for the discharge reason  when  the  applicant  has  indicated  a
desire to  enter  civil  law  enforcement  and  there  is  medical  evidence
documenting a mental disorder.  In view of  his  inappropriate  displays  of
anger while on active duty, and in an effort to protect the  Office  of  the
Secretary of the Air Force, a majority of the Board  strongly  believes  the
record should remain undisturbed and should he  still  desire  civilian  law
enforcement employment, he may seek psychological  evaluation  and  testing,
as recommended by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant, to support his  application
for employment.  In view of the above, a majority of the  Board  finds  that
the applicant has not satisfied his burden to show there has been  an  error
or injustice.  Therefore,  a  majority  of  the  Board  does  not  recommend
favorable consideration of his request to change the  narrative  reason  for
his separation and separation code.

4.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice concerning the  applicant’s  RE  code.   The
applicant has provided no evidence showing that his assigned RE code  is  in
error or contrary to the prevailing  instruction.   It  is  clear  that  the
decision to separate the applicant was proper based on his situation at  the
time.  The RE code which was issued at the  time  of  applicant’s  discharge
accurately   reflects   the   circumstances   of   his   separation,   i.e.,
involuntarily separated with an honorable  discharge.   Accordingly,  we  do
not find this code to be in error or unjust.  We therefore conclude that  no
basis exists upon which to recommend favorable action on  his  request  that
it be changed.

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 issues involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of  error  or  injustice
regarding the applicant’s narrative reason  for  separation  and  separation
code and recommends this portion of the application be denied.  All  members
of the Board find insufficient evidence of error or  injustice  with  regard
to the applicant’s Reenlistment Eligibility code.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered  Docket  Number  BC-2002-03341
in Executive Session on 22 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
                       Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member

By majority vote, the Board voted to deny the applicant’s request to  change
his narrative reason for separation and separation code.  Mr.  Groner  voted
to grant this portion  of  the  applicant’s  request  and  has  submitted  a
minority report which is at Exhibit  H.   All  members  voted  to  deny  the
applicant’s request  to  change  his  Reenlistment  Eligibility  code.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Oct 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 2 Jan 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Feb 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 27 Mar 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Apr 03.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Dr. Koehnemann, dated 21 Mar 03.
    Exhibit H.  Minority Report.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair
Dear Applicant

      Reference your application submitted under the provisions of AFI
36-2603 (Section 1552, 10 USC), AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-03341.

      After careful consideration of your application and military
records, a majority of the Board determined that the evidence you
presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error
or injustice.  The Secretary's designee accepted the recommendation of
the majority and denied your application.

      You have the right to submit newly discovered relevant evidence
for consideration by the Board.  In the absence of such additional
evidence, a further review of your application is not possible.

      BY DIRECTION OF THE PANEL CHAIR





                                        ROSE M. KIRKPATRICK
                                        Chief Examiner
                                        Air Force Board for Correction
                                        of Military Records

Attachment:
SAF/MRB Memo, w/Record
 of Board Proceedings





MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR
                                        CORRECTION   OF   MILITARY   RECORDS
(AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:    AFBCMR Application of APPLICANT

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR
                     CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  APPLICANT, DOCKET NO: BC-2002-03341

      The majority of the Board recommends denial of the applicant’s
request to change the narrative reason for his separation and separation
code.  I disagree.

      The applicant was administratively discharged after being diagnosed
with an adjustment disorder.  Although the discharge action taken against
him was in accordance with the applicable instruction, I find the narrative
reason for his separation; i.e., personality disorder, to be inappropriate
since he was not diagnosed with this condition.  The BCMR Medical
Consultant confirms that the applicant’s maladaptive personality traits
were not judged to be severe enough to warrant a formal diagnosis of a
personality disorder.

      Since current Air Force Instructions regulating separations for
mental health problems do not allow coding for other than “Personality
Disorder,” an entirely different DSM-IV code sequence from that with which
the applicant was diagnosed, I believe his records are in error based on
this administrative shortfall.  Furthermore, since the applicant indicates
that the narrative reason for his separation is preventing him from
becoming a police officer, and we recognize that he was not diagnosed with
a personality disorder and yet has been improperly labeled with such a
condition, I believe he is also the victim of an injustice.

      In view of the above, I find that the applicant has satisfied his
burden to show there has been an error or injustice.  Therefore, I
recommend the narrative reason for his separation and separation code be
changed to reflect “Secretarial Authority” and “JFF,” respectively.




                                        LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                        Panel Member