RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02081
            INDEX CODE:  110.03

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code  of  2C  be  changed  to  allow
enlistment into the Air National Guard (ANG).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

With less than a year left on his enlistment he was ordered to a  one-
year remote assignment in Korea.  He  declined  but  the  orders  were
reissued.  Once in Korea, he reenlisted and applied for  an  extension
to his one-year tour.  The extension was approved but his tour was cut
short and he was forced  to  relocate,  after  many  promises  by  his
supervisor to the contrary, to Seymour Johnson AFB in North  Carolina.
Upon arrival at his new duty station, he spoke with his first sergeant
about getting orders back to Korea  so  he  could  consummate  wedding
plans and complete Visa actions for his fiancé.  He was  told  he  was
stuck for two years and  to  “suck  it  up.”   He  asked  to  see  his
commander, was denied this opportunity, and was sent instead to mental
health where he explained how he felt  about  enduring  two  Permanent
Change of Station (PCS) moves  in  a  year  and  a  half.   After  the
evaluation, he was told he was being separated and was harassed by his
first sergeant that speeded up his separation action.   He  was  young
and immature and let his emotions cloud  his  vision.   He  has  since
matured and would love to serve his country as he misses the pride  in
wearing the uniform.  He points to his attached  Enlisted  Performance
Reports (EPRs) as evidence he was a model airman.

In support of his  appeal,  the  applicant  has  provided  a  personal
statement, a copy of his  DD  Form  214,  Certificate  of  Release  or
Discharge from Active Duty, and copies of his EPR’s covering the  time
2 April 1997 through 11 December 2000.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty on 2 April 1997.  His EPR’s prior to
2001 reflected excellent duty performance as evidenced by ratings of 5
on a scale of 5.  He was administratively discharged for unsuitability
(Adjustment Disorder and Personality)  on  31  July  2001  after  four
years, three months and twenty-nine days of service.  He  was  serving
in the grade of senior airman (E-4) at the time of his separation.  He
received an honorable discharge with a RE code of  2C,  “Involuntarily
separated with an honorable discharge.”

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  He notes that  prior
to 2001 the applicant had  a  documented  history  of  excellent  duty
performance.   He  was  decertified  from  the  Personnel  Reliability
Program (PRP) apparently in part, due to his admission of experimental
use of marijuana use prior to entering active duty  that  he  had  not
disclosed at his enlistment.  He was angry at things not going his way
and behaved in a manner  that  disrupted  his  unit,  specifically  by
making threats  that  were  not  otherwise  specified.   He  developed
symptoms of depressed mood  diagnosed  as  Adjustment  Disorder.   The
mental  health  evaluation  in  June  2001  also  concluded  that   he
demonstrated maladaptive traits (immature and obsessive compulsive) of
sufficient  severity  to  constitute  a  diagnosis  of  a  Personality
Disorder severe enough to warrant an administrative discharge from the
Air Force for unsuitability.

The record documents Adjustment Disorder and Personality  Disorder  as
conditions not medically disqualifying or unfitting but may render the
individual unsuitable for further military service and  may  be  cause
for administrative action.  Adjustment Disorder  is  characterized  by
marked psychological distress in response  to  identifiable  stressors
that overcome the individual’s  ability  to  cope  and  is  frequently
associated with significant  impairment  in  social  and  occupational
functioning.  The emotional and behavioral responses may be in  excess
of what would normally be expected given the nature of the  stressors.
Manifestations can include depressed mood, anxiety,  and  disturbances
of conduct.   A  key  feature  of  Adjustment  Disorder  is  that  the
condition resolves itself with relief of the  stressors.   Personality
disorders are lifelong patterns of maladjustment in  the  individual’s
personality structure, which are frequently exacerbated by stress  and
may present with symptoms consistent with Adjustment Disorder.

The fact that he  is  functioning  well  at  this  time  confirms  his
diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder, however it does not predict that  he
will respond well to the stresses of military  service  combined  with
personal stressors  or  frustrations.   The  presence  of  maladaptive
traits as  described  above  combined  with  his  past  experience  is
predictive of an increased risk for recurrence of  difficulties  under
similar  stressful  circumstances.   His   otherwise   superior   duty
performance does not overcome the  facts  of  the  record  documenting
unsuitability for continued military service, in particular the making
of threats against other in his  unit,  but  clearly  earned  him  the
Honorable  characterization  of  service  he  received.   Action   and
disposition  in  this  case  are  proper  and   equitable   reflecting
compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.

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

AFPC/DPPRSP recommends denial.  His commander notified him on  16 July
2001 that he was being recommended for discharge due  to  a  condition
that interferes with military service, specifically a mental disorder.
 His disorder hampered the mission effectiveness of his unit and  made
him unable to continue the sensitive nature  of  his  duties.   DPPRSP
states the applicant did not submit any new evidence or  identify  any
errors or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the  discharge  processing.
Additionally,  he  provided  no  facts  warranting  a  change  in  his
discharge.  DPPRSP holds that the discharge was  consistent  with  the
procedural and substantive requirements of  the  discharge  regulation
and was within the discharge authorities discretion.

DPPRSP’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
31 October 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice.  After a thorough review  of  the
evidence of record and applicant's submission,  we  do  not  find  his
uncorroborated  assertions,  in  and   by   themselves,   sufficiently
persuasive to override  the  rationale  provided  by  the  Air  Force.
Therefore, we agree with the opinion and  recommendation  of  the  Air
Force  office  of  primary  responsibility  and  adopt  the  rationale
expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has  failed
to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or injustice.
 His otherwise superior duty performance does not overcome  the  facts
of the record documenting  unsuitability  for  continued  service,  in
particular the making of threats against  others  in  his  unit.   His
performance did, however, earn him the “Honorable” characterization of
service he received.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive 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  issue(s)   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-
2003-02081 in  Executive  Session  on  10  December  2003,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
      Mr. J. Dean Yount, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Jun 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 12 Sep 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 7 Oct 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Oct 03.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair