RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03538
            INDEX CODE:  100.03

            COUNSEL:  AMERICAN LEGION

            HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to  one  that  would
allow him to reenlist.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During basic military training  (BMT),  his  parents  learned  that  a
babysitter had sexually abused him and his brother in the  past.   His
brother had been admitted to the hospital due to experiencing problems
with the past abuse.  These and the contributing stress  of  BMT  were
all factors that caused unbearable emotional distress that led to  his
discharge.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a letter from the
--- County Shriffs's Office, results of psychological exams  performed
as  part  of  an  application  for  law  enforcement  employment,  and
documents pertaining to his discharge..

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 March  1995.   On
20  March  1995,  a  military  chaplain  referred  the  applicant   to
Behavioral Analysis Service (BAS) after the applicant had  reported  a
history of sexual abuse.  The resulting evaluation  yielded  diagnoses
of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder  and  Dysthymic  Disorder  based  on
sexual abuse of the applicant between the ages of six and  nine  years
old by an adult male babysitter.  BAS recommended separation from  the
Air Force.

On 23 March 1995, applicant received notification that  his  commander
was recommending him for discharge under the  auspices  of  Air  Force
Instruction (AFI) 36-3208, Conditions  that  Interfere  with  Military
Service, Mental Disorders.  The discharge was found legally sufficient
on 23 March 1995.  The applicant was notified of his right to  counsel
and to submit statements on his behalf.  He  acknowledged  and  waived
both.  He  was  discharged  on  28  March  1995  with  an  entry-level
separation, as he had not completed his first term  of  service.   His
character of service was uncharacterized as he had not served over 180
days.  He was issued an RE code of "2C".

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluated this case and is of the  opinion
that no  change  in  the  record  is  warranted.   The  applicant  was
administratively discharged with an entry-level  separation  for  Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder and Dysthymia that existed prior to service.
 During his mental health evaluation he reported a significant history
of difficulties with childhood sexual abuse,  depression,  and  social
and occupational difficulties.  At the time of his enlistment  medical
examination he concealed his history of  depressive  symptoms.   Since
discharge from the Air Force, he has become an effective member  of  a
county sheriff’s department SWAT team.  Psychological testing for  his
employment was reported as normal but his  prior  psychiatric  history
did not appear to be known to the evaluating psychologist.   The  fact
that he is functioning well at this time suggests  the  applicant  has
improved his coping ability, however it does not predict that he  will
respond well to the stresses of military  operations,  deployment,  or
combat when he is separated from his familiar surroundings  and  usual
support system of family and friends.  His past  psychiatric  symptoms
and diagnoses are still a significant risk factor  for  recurrence  of
symptoms that would interfere with the performance of  duty  when  re-
exposed to the rigors of military training and service.

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

AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this application and  recommended  denial.   DPPRS
states that, based on the documentation in the file, 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.

DPPRS’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPAE reviewed this application and  recommended  denial.   DPPAE
states that the  RE  code  of  2C,  “Involuntary  separation  with  an
honorable    discharge;    or    entry-level    separation     without
characterization of service,” is correct.

DPPAE’s evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
30 May 2003 for review and comment 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 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.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case  and
commend his achievements since being separated; however, we agree with
the opinion and recommendation of the  Air  Force  office  of  primary
responsibility and  the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant,  and  adopt  their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not
been the victim of an error or injustice.   Therefore,  based  on  the
evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable
action on this application

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

_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2002-03538 in Executive Session on 8 July 2003, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
      Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
      Ms. Martha Maust, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Nov 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 24 Feb 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 25 Mar 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 27 May 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 03.




                                   JOHN L. ROBUCK
                                   Panel Chair