RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00575
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXx   COUNSEL:  Joseph W. Kastl

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “4” (sic) be deleted so that
he may join the Army, either in the Reserves or the National Guard.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In a four-page brief of counsel, with an attached evaluation performed
by a licensed clinical social worker, applicant  categorically  denies
any mental disorder before his entry into the Air Force.

In Nov 02, he was evaluated by a  civilian  licensed  clinical  social
worker that made the following essential findings:

          a.  The medical criteria used to justify the  administrative
separation were “totally unsubstantiated.”

          b.  The applicant does not meet the criteria for  Borderline
Personality Disorder; there clearly were insufficient grounds for such
a military characterization.

          c.  The applicant’s poor overall  functioning  at  his  duty
assignment is unsupported by any reliable evidence.

          d.  The applicant never received treatment for mental health
problems prior to entry into the Air Force.

The applicant was successfully doing  his  job  at  the  time  of  his
discharge and received a contemporaneous five out of five rating.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 28 Sep 93.   The
applicant’s squadron commander notified him on 18 Apr 95 that  he  was
recommending  his  discharge  from  the  Air  Force  for   involuntary
convenience of the government involving a  condition  that  interferes
with military service, specifically a mental disorder.  The reason for
the commander’s action was the  applicant’s  diagnosis  of  Adjustment
Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct and Borderline
Personality Disorder (Primary Diagnosis).  In addition, the  applicant
had other derogatory data listed in his military record consisting  of
a Letter of Reprimand for disrespect to his superiors.  This data  was
not used as a basis for discharge.  However, the applicant was advised
that the data could be considered to determine whether  he  should  be
discharged  or  retained  and  on   the   issue   of   probation   and
rehabilitation.  The applicant acknowledged receipt on 18 Apr  95  and
waived his option to consult counsel and to submit statements.  On  18
Apr 95, the applicant’s squadron commander  recommended  to  the  wing
commander that the applicant be discharged for the reasons  previously
stated.  The recommendation was  reviewed  by  the  wing  staff  judge
advocate and  found  legally  sufficient  to  support  discharge.   He
recommended the applicant be separated with  an  honorable  discharge,
without  probation  and  rehabilitation.   On  21  Apr  95,  the  wing
commander approved the applicant’s discharge and directed that  he  be
discharged with service characterized as honorable  without  probation
and rehabilitation.  The applicant was discharged on 27 Apr  95.   His
DD  Form  214  indicates  a  narrative  reason   for   separation   of
“Personality Disorder” and a RE code of “2C,” “Involuntarily separated
with an honorable discharge.”

The applicant’s record  does  not  contain  any  enlisted  performance
reports (EPRs).  However, a letter of evaluation (LOE),  AF  Form  77,
was accomplished due to his administrative  discharge.   LOEs  do  not
contain numerical ratings.

The BCMR considered and denied a previous case from the  applicant  on
17 Sep 96 requesting that the narrative reason for separation and  his
separation code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends that the applicant’s request be
denied.

The applicant was referred for mental health  evaluation  after  being
disciplined for being disrespectful to his supervisors and  reportedly
telling his commander that he was going to snap and wanted out of  the
Air Force.  The mental health evaluation reported a significant mental
health history that began before service entry and  continued  through
basic and  technical  training  into  the  time  of  evaluation.   The
evaluating psychologist typically obtains  such  detailed  information
directly from the patient.  Evidence to the contrary  is  obtained  by
review of the personnel record (only six weeks  of  abnormal  behavior
characterized as mistrust  and  aggressiveness),  the  medical  record
(previous “negative” psychological  testing),  and  character  letters
from the Discharge Review Board.  Psychological testing reported to be
consistent with personality disorder.  The validity  of  such  testing
depends on accurate responses by the patient.   Psychological  testing
in  Oct  93  produced  results  that  did  not  warrant  psychological
intervention and the applicant was returned to duty.

The mental health  opinion  provided  as  new  evidence  contests  the
diagnosis of  personality  disorder  but  opines  that  an  adjustment
disorder was likely present.  The BCMR Medical Consultant agrees  that
there is an absence of evidence to support a diagnosis of  personality
disorder beyond the results of the psychological  testing  and  mental
health interview in Apr 95.  Overall the  evidence  available  in  the
record is sparse and a definitive  evaluation  is  not  possible.   He
concludes  that  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  supports   the
diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder and the  presence  of  behavioral  or
personality patterns that  conflicted  with  continued  adjustment  to
military service and rendered the applicant  unsuitable  for  military
service.  The fact that  the  applicant  accepted  his  discharge  and
waived his right to counsel and to submit a statement  on  his  behalf
suggests that the applicant desired to leave the Air Force and did not
disagree at the time with his psychiatric diagnoses.

The DoD uses the term personality disorder administratively on the  DD
Form 214 to include all unsuiting  character  and  behavior  disorders
including Adjustment Disorder  and  others.   This  can  be  confusing
because the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders uses
the term “personality disorder”  in  a  specific,  defined  manner  to
classify  specific  disorders  of  personality  that  do  not  include
Adjustment   Disorder   or   Impulse   Control   Disorder.    Although
“personality disorder” is listed on the applicant’s DD Form 214 as the
narrative reason for discharge, he may not have a personality disorder
as used in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental  Disorders.
The Discharge Review Board  concluded  that  the  applicant  willfully
misrepresented himself in order to gain separation from the Air  Force
and denied his request.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends that the applicant’s case be denied.   Based  on
their review of the documentation in the case file they  believe  that
the applicant’s discharge  was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.   The  applicant
did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors  or  injustices
that occurred in the discharge process.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPAE determined that the applicant’s RE code of “2C” is correct.
 They state that no evidence has been presented  to  support  changing
the RE code.  Waivers of RE codes for enlistment  are  considered  and
approved based on the needs of the respective military service at  the
time of the enlistment inquiry.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
11 Jul 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date  a  response
has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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;
however, we agree with the opinions and  recommendations  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.

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   issues   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 Docket  Number  BC-2003-
00575 in Executive Session on 4 September 2003, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Panel Chair
      Ms. Nancy Wells Drury, Member
      Mr. Robert H. Altman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Feb 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant,
                dated 14 May 03.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 23 May 03.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 8 Jul 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jul 03.




                                   PATRICIA D. VESTAL
                                   Panel Chair