RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00707

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge  for  unsatisfactory  performance  be  changed  to  a  medical
discharge, or in the alternative, the reason for his  discharge  be  changed
to personality disorder.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His reason for discharge should  be  changed  to  disability  based  on  the
diagnosis of Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) in order for  him  to  qualify
for Montgomery GI Bill benefits.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 December  1998,  for  a
period of four years.  His Armed Forces Classification  Test  (AFCT)  scores
were as follows:

                 Administration   67
                 Electronic  55
                 General     52
                 Mechanical  65

Based on four incidents in which he failed to obey,  failed  to  follow  his
checklist, and failed to perform as instructed, he was seen  by  the  Chief,
Psychological Services on 8, 12, and  16  June  2000,  for  a  non-emergency
command-directed Mental Health Evaluation.   The  Mental  Health  Evaluation
was completed on 22 June 2000, and based  on  the  diagnosis  of  borderline
intellectual functioning, it was recommended that  he  be  reassigned  to  a
less mentally challenging  assignment  within  the  squadron  or  be  cross-
trained to a career field more appropriate to his intellectual  level.   The
diagnosis was determined to not be so severe that his  ability  to  function
in  the  military  was  significantly  impaired   and   his   administrative
separation was not recommended.

He was disqualified from Air Force Specialty Code  (AFSC)  2A333B  (Tactical
Aircraft Maintenance), and his AFSC was redesignated as 9A000  (unclassified
airman), effective 6 July 2000.

He was readministered the AFCT on 12 July 2000, resulting in  the  following
scores:

                 Administration   33
                 Electronic  39
                 General     25
                 Mechanical  33

He was given the option of accepting his new AFCT scores, or  retaining  his
old AFCT scores.  He elected to retain his old AFCT scores.

On 1 August 2000, his supervisor referred  an  Enlisted  Performance  Report
(EPR), rendered for the period 2 December 1998 through 1 August  2000.   The
report contained ratings in Section III, Item 3 (How Well Does Ratee  Comply
with Standards?), and Item 4 (How is  Ratee’s  Conduct  on/off  Duty?),  and
comments in Section V (Rater’s Comments) and Section VI (Additional  Rater’s
Comments), that made the report a referral.

The commander notified him on 16 January 2001, that he was recommending  his
discharge for unsatisfactory  performance  -  failure  to  perform  assigned
duties properly.  The commander stated his reasons for the  action  were  as
follows:

      a.    On 1 and  2  November  1999,  he  failed  to  study  his  Career
Development Course (CDC) materials or to have those materials  available  to
do so, as evidenced by a Letter of Counseling (LOC), dated 5 November  1999,
and a Memorandum for Record (MFR), dated 20 December 2000.

      b.    On 12 November 1999, he was found lacking in both  attention  to
detail and situational awareness, as evidenced by an LOC, dated 12  November
1999, and an MFR, dated 20 December 2000.

      c.    On 15 November 1999, he failed to obey simple  instructions,  as
evidenced by an LOC, dated 15 November 1999, and an MFR, dated  21  December
2000.

      d.    On 5 July 2000, he again failed to follow  simple  instructions,
as evidenced by an LOC, dated 5 July 2000.






      e.    On 12 July 2000, he was disqualified from his current  AFSC,  as
evidenced by an AF Form 422, Physical Profile Serial Report, dated  12  July
2000; a Mental Health Evaluation, dated 22 June 2000; and an  MFR,  dated  2
November 2000, with attachment.

       f.     On  19  December  2000,  he  failed  to  go  to  a   mandatory
appointment,  as  evidenced  by  a  Letter  of  Admonishment  (LOA),   dated
18 December 2000.

The  separation  authority  approved  his   discharge   for   unsatisfactory
performance - failure to perform assigned duties  properly,  and  determined
that he was not a suitable candidate for probation and rehabilitation.

He was honorably discharged on 14 February 2001,  under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-3208 (Unsatisfactory Performance).  He completed 2 years,  2  months,
and 13 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The BCMR Medical Consultant states, in part, that although  the  action  and
disposition in this case were proper and equitable,  if  acceptable  to  the
applicant, the reason for his discharge  could  be  changed  to  personality
disorder.  As a result of his failure to progress in  his  CDC,  inattention
to  detail,  difficulty   following   instructions,   and   required   close
supervision,  he  was  evaluated  by  mental  health  and   diagnosed   with
borderline intellectual function,  and  properly  discharged  based  on  his
unsatisfactory performance.  He was not diagnosed with ADD while  on  active
duty, nor has he provided evidence that he was diagnosed with the  condition
since his discharge.  Although he  was  not  diagnosed  with  a  personality
disorder or other mental disorder, his  existing  prior  to  service  (EPTS)
developmental condition appears to have been the underlying  cause  for  his
failure to progress, and could be considered the basis  for  his  discharge.
Were  he  discharged  for  his  borderline  intellectual  functioning,   his
narrative reason for separation would have been personality disorder,  since
all unsuiting mental conditions that result in administrative discharge  are
administratively labeled as such.   Furthermore,  changing  his  reason  for
discharge to personality disorder may enable him  to  access  Montgomery  GI
Bill benefits.

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

AFPC/DPPD recommends the application be denied and  states,  in  part,  that
the applicant has not provided medical documentation  to  substantiate  that
an  injustice  occurred  during  his  involuntary  administrative  discharge
processing.  However, they do not object to the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant’s
recommendation that his reason  for  discharge  be  changed  to  personality
disorder, provided the  applicant  agrees,  it  legally  qualifies  him  for
Montgomery GI Bill  benefits,  and  is  not  associated  or  tied  into  the
military disability evaluation process.  The unit’s unsuccessful attempt  to
retrain him left them no choice but to  initiate  administrative  separation
since he was unable to reasonably  perform  his  duties.   If  he  had  been
processed through the Air Force Disability  Evaluation  System,  it  appears
that an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) would have considered  his
borderline retardation  as  being  unsuiting,  rather  than  unfitting,  not
ratable  or  compensable,  and  recommended  he  be  returned  to  duty  for
processing under the appropriate Air Force Instruction  for  his  situation.
All evidence indicates that the administrative  discharge  action  taken  by
the unit at the time of his discharge was appropriate.

The AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPAT recommends the applicant be advised to reapply for Montgomery  GI
Bill benefits and submit the appropriate  supporting  documents  should  the
AFBCMR grant relief.  The Department of Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)  may  award
Montgomery GI Bill benefits to an individual separating  for  unsatisfactory
performance if he/she served at least the full  first  period  of  obligated
active duty.  The law permits the DVA to award  benefits  to  an  individual
serving 26 or fewer months if he/she separates for a mental  condition  that
interferes with duty (i.e., personality disorder).

The AFPC/DPPAT evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant states  that  he  has  been  diagnosed  as  being  a  paranoid
schizophrenic and is 100% disabled.  His  psychiatrist  told  him  it  could
have been caused from his military service.  Perhaps when he  was  evaluated
at behavioral health they did not realize his problem.

Applicant’s complete submissions are 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  applicant’s
administrative  separation  for  unsatisfactory  performance  to  a  medical
discharge.   Although  the  applicant  requests  a  medical  discharge,   he
provides no evidence that he was unfit for continued military  service.   In
this respect, we note that a finding of unfitness is a prerequisite  of  any
disability processing.  In the applicant’s  case,  although  his  Borderline
Intellectual Functioning was an unsuiting condition, it did not  render  him
unfit for military service.  In view of the  foregoing,  we  find  no  basis
upon which to recommend favorable  action  on  his  request  for  a  medical
discharge.

4.  The BCMR Medical Consultant has indicated  that  since  the  applicant’s
EPTS developmental condition appears to have been the underlying  cause  for
his discharge, the narrative  reason  for  discharge  could  be  changed  to
Personality Disorder (a condition that interfered  with  military  service).
We agree  with  his  opinion  and  the  applicant  also  concurs  with  this
recommendation.  Therefore, we recommend that the records  be  corrected  to
the extent indicated below.  Additionally, the  recommended  change  to  the
applicant’s narrative reason for  discharge  may  entitle  him  to  benefits
under the Montgomery GI Bill.  Therefore, it is suggested  that  he  reapply
to the Department of Veterans Affairs with respect to this issue.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be  corrected  to  show  that  on  14  February  2001,  he  was
honorably discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208,  paragraph  5.11.1
(Personality Disorder) and issued  a  Separation  Program  Designator  (SPD)
code of “JFX.”

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered  Docket  Number  BC-2003-00707
in Executive Session on 23 September 2003 and  20 January  2004,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
                       Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
                       Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Feb 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 15 May 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 18 Jun 03.






    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAT, dated 14 Jul 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jul 03.
    Exhibit G.  Letters, Applicant, undated.




                                   JOHN L. ROBUCK
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2003-00707




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 14 February 2001, he
was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, paragraph
5.11.1 (Personality Disorder) and issued a Separation Program Designator
(SPD) code of “JFX.”









JOE G. LINEBERGER

Director

Air Force Review Boards Agency