RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01579
            INDEX CODE:  100.03
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was related to mistakes he made over a woman,  which  he
takes full responsibility.  He  feels  that  his  RE  code  is  unjust
because it is based on one time  span  of  his  enlistment,  while  90
percent of his service time was served without any problems.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement,
a copy of DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active
Duty, and a Letter of Appreciation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic  on
19 July 2000 for a term of 6 years.  On 30 October 2001, the applicant
was  notified  by  his  commander  that  he  was  recommending  he  be
discharged from the Air Force due to minor  disciplinary  infractions.
The reason for this action was that on 22 September 2001, he was found
sleeping on post.  On  26 September  2001,  he  was  derelict  in  the
performance of  his  duties  in  that  he  willfully  failed  to  bury
euthanized dogs when he was instructed to do so.  For this  misconduct
on 22 and  26 September  2001,  he  received  an  Article  15  with  a
suspended reduction to airman, a suspended forfeiture  of  $1,168  and
restriction to the base for 6 days.  He failed a lawful order to clean
around the building between 5 and  9  October  2001,  and  received  a
letter of reprimand.  On 20 October 2001, he failed to obey  a  lawful
order by the commander by  leaving  the  base  during  his  restricted
period.  On 22 October 2001, the member failed to obey a lawful  order
to return to duty.  For his actions on 20 and  22  October  2001,  the
suspended punishment from the previous Article 15 was imposed.  He was
advised of his rights in this matter.  He acknowledged receipt of  the
notification, waived his right to consult counsel, and elected not  to
submit statements on his own behalf.  The package was reviewed by  the
staff judge advocate and  found  to  be  legally  sufficient.   On  21
November 2001, he was administratively discharged under the provisions
of AFI 36-3208, Administrative  Separation  of  Airman,  (misconduct),
with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. He was  issued
an RE code of 4H “Serving suspended punishment pursuant to Article 15,
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)”.  He served  one  year,  four
months and two days total active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant  recommends  denial.   The  applicant  was
discharged for misconduct with a general characterization of  service.
His commander had two basis upon which to  administratively  discharge
the  applicant,  misconduct  and  unsuitability  due   to   adjustment
disorder.  The commander acted within his  discretion  to  choose  the
basis,  which  was  the  predominant  reason  for  discharge  and   to
characterize his service as general due to the misconduct.

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.  One  of
the  key  features  of  Adjustment  Disorder  is  that  the  condition
typically resolves with relief  of  the  stressors.   Individuals  who
develop Adjustment Disorder due to the stress of the routine rigors of
military service with or without concomitant personal issues  are  not
suited  for  military  service  and  are  subject  to   administrative
discharge by their commander.

The applicant attributes his difficulties performing his duties  to  a
romantic relationship, a circumstance that  most  airmen  successfully
handle without duty impairment,  misconduct,  or  emotional  responses
leading to psychiatric hospitalization.  In retrospect,  the  symptoms
reported in  the  14  June  2001  medical  record  entry  suggest  the
applicant was experiencing symptoms of  adjustment  disorder  at  that
time.  The fact that he is functioning  well  at  this  time  at  home
confirms his diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder,  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 social support system of family and friends.
 His past experience is predictive of an increased risk for recurrence
of debilitating anxiety and adjustment disorder if re-exposed  to  the
rigors of military training and service.

Action  and  disposition  in  this  case  are  proper  and   equitable
reflecting compliance with Air Force  directives  that  implement  the
law.

The Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  The applicant did not  submit  any  new
evidence or identify any errors or injustices  that  occurred  in  the
discharge process.  Additionally, he provided no  facts  warranting  a
change in his discharge.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial.  The RE code of 4H,  “Serving  suspended
punishment pursuant to Article 15, Uniform Code  of  Military  Justice
(UCMJ)”, is correct.  At the time of the 21 November  2001  discharge,
applicant was serving punishment pursuant to a 22 October 2001 Article
15.  Member has not provided any documentation that supports  changing
his RE code.  Waivers of RE codes for enlistment  are  considered  and
approved based on the needs of the  respective  military  service  and
recruiting initiatives at the time of the enlistment inquiry.

The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
21 Nov 03, for review and comment 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice in regard to his  request  that
his reenlistment eligibility (RE)  code  be  changed.   Therefore,  we
agree with the  opinions  and  recommendations  of  the  BCMR  Medical
Consultant and 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.  Applicant
has not provided any evidence, which would lead the Board  to  believe
otherwise.  Therefore, we  find  no  basis  upon  which  to  recommend
favorable action on 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 Docket  Number  BC-2003-
01579 in Executive Session on 6 January 2004, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
                 Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
                 Mr. J. Dean Yount, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Apr 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 4 Sep 03.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 Oct 03.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 14 Nov 03.
      Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Nov 03.





      PEGGY E. GORDON
      Panel Chair