RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01569
            INDEX CODE:  112.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His character of service and reenlistment  eligibility  (RE)  code  be
changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reason stated for his discharge is  not  correct  and  is  untrue.
Since his discharge, he never needed counseling or treatment.   Before
the incident and after, his job ratings were and have been  excellent,
including his civilian government job.   The  cause  of  his  problems
leading to his separation was  a  marriage  (not  personal)  during  a
drawdown phase.  He is no longer married.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 214,
a copy of his job evaluation  documents,  and  a  personal  statement.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 3 June 1993.  Prior  to
the events under review, he was progressively promoted to the grade of
senior airman (E-4), effective and with a date of rank of 3 June 1996.
 He received four Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs),  in  which  the
promotion recommendations were “5,” “5,” “5” and “4.”

On 23 September 1998, the commander notified the applicant that he was
being  recommended  for  discharge  due  to  mental  disorders.    The
applicant was diagnosed as having an adjustment  disorder  with  mixed
disturbance of conduct and emotion.  His diagnosis was  determined  to
be so severe that it significantly impaired his  ability  to  function
effectively in the military environment.  The applicant was advised of
his rights.  Specifically, he was advised that an honorable  discharge
would  be   recommended   without   the   offer   of   probation   and
rehabilitation.   After  consulting  military   legal   counsel,   the
applicant submitted statements  for  consideration  by  the  discharge
authority.  In a legal review of the  discharge  case  file,  dated  6
October 1998, an assistant staff judge advocate  found  the  file  was
legally sufficient and recommended that  the  proposed  separation  be
approved.  On 8 October 1998, the  discharge  authority  approved  the
recommended separation and directed that the  applicant  be  honorably
discharged, without probation and rehabilitation.

The applicant, while serving  in  the  grade  of  senior  airman,  was
discharged from the Air Force on 27 October 1998 under the  provisions
of AFI  36-3208,  Administrative  Separation  of  Airmen  (personality
disorder), with an honorable discharge.  He served 5 years,  4  months
and 25 days active duty.  He was assigned a  reenlistment  eligibility
(RE) code of 2C (Involuntary discharge with a service characterization
of honorable).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  states  that  the  applicant  was  twice
hospitalized with suicidal ideation and suicide attempt  over  a  one-
year period in the setting of marital discord.  He  was  diagnosed  by
psychiatrists  at  Walter  Reed  Army  Medical  Center  (WRAMC)   with
Borderline Personality Disorder that in  their  opinion  rendered  the
applicant unsuitable for continued military  service.   Their  opinion
that he  was  unsuitable  for  continued  service  was  based  on  the
recurrent nature of his suicidal  ideation  requiring  hospitalization
and their  assessment  that  he  was  at  risk  for  continued  future
recurrent suicidal  ideation  and  attempts.   Borderline  Personality
Disorder is characterized by a pattern of instability in interpersonal
relationships, self-image, emotion  and  marked  impulsivity  and  the
symptoms are often exacerbated by impending  separation,  divorce,  or
break-up of a significant relationship.  Although the family  advocacy
section  of  the  McGuire  AFB  mental  health  clinic  evaluated  the
applicant, he did not undergo the extensive evaluation at the  McGuire
Mental Health Clinic that he did while  hospitalized  at  Walter  Reed
Army Medical Center to  correlate  with  the  findings  of  the  WRAMC
evaluation.  The applicant provides an incomplete copy of  a  December
2002 evaluation omitting the evaluating psychologist’s impressions and
diagnoses.

The applicant’s superior duty performance is significant and indicates
that his personality traits leading to  the  diagnosis  of  Borderline
Personality Disorder did not impact his duty performance.  Were it not
for the recurrent nature  of  his  suicidal  ideation  under  personal
relational stress, his personality features would  not  be  considered
unsuiting for  continued  service.   However,  with  the  demonstrated
history of two  hospitalizations  for  suicidal  ideation,  he  is  at
increased   risk   for   unpredictable   recurrence   under    similar
circumstances.  This risk is incompatible  with  the  requirements  of
continued military service.

Action  and  disposition  in  this  case  are  proper  and   equitable
reflecting compliance with Air Force  directives  that  implement  the
law.  The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change  in
the records is warranted.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRSP  recommends  denial.   They  believe  the  discharge   was
consistent with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the
discharge regulation.  Additionally,  the  discharge  was  within  the
sound discretion of the discharge authority.  Accordingly, they concur
with the BCMR Medical Consultant advisory and  recommend  his  records
remain the same.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

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

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 21  November  2003,  copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As
of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After reviewing the evidence  of
record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s records are in error
or that he has been the victim of an injustice.  His  contentions  are
noted; however, in our opinion, the detailed comments provided by  the
appropriate Air Force offices adequately  address  those  allegations.
Therefore, we agree with opinions and recommendations of the Air Force
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  the  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or  injustice.   In  the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 29 January 2004, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Carolyn J. Watkins-Taylor, Panel Chair
                 Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
                 Ms. Deborah A. Erickson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Apr 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 2 Sep 03.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 6 Oct 03.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 12 Nov 03.
      Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Nov 03.




                             CAROLYN J. WATKINS-TAYLOR
                             Panel Chair