RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01878
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXX   COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His “2C” Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code, “Involuntarily separated
with an  honorable  discharge;  or  entry  level  separation  without
characterization of service” be changed to a “1” to allow his reentry
into service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His adjustment disorder is entirely resolved and he does not  believe
it should be a bar to his reentering service.

In support of his appeal, applicant provides a  letter  from  an  Air
Force Staff Psychiatrist stating that his condition has resolved.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty on 10 Jul 01.  On 22  Apr  03,  his
Squadron  Commander  notified  him  that  he  was  recommending   his
discharge from the Air Force for a Mental Disorder  (Conditions  that
Interfere with Military Service).  Specifically,  the  applicant  was
diagnosed by a Staff Psychiatrist as having  an  Adjustment  Disorder
with Depressed Mood.  The applicant acknowledged receipt on 22 Apr 03
and elected to consult counsel.  He submitted a written statement  in
rebuttal of the  discharge  action.   On  24  Apr  03,  the  Squadron
Commander recommended to the Wing Commander  that  the  applicant  be
discharged for the reasons stated above.   On  3  May  03,  the  Wing
Commander directed that the applicant  be  discharged  from  the  Air
Force  with  an   honorable   discharge   with   no   probation   and
rehabilitation.  The applicant was discharged on 12  May  03  with  a
“2C” RE code,  with  service  characterized  as  honorable,  and  the
narrative reason indicated as “Personality Disorder.”

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends that the narrative reason  for
the applicant’s discharge be changed to “Secretarial Authority,”  but
no change be made to the applicant’s RE code.

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.  One  of  the  key
features of Adjustment Disorder is that the condition  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 fact that the applicant is functioning well  at  this
time after the stresses of military service  were  relieved  confirms
his diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder, but does not indicate  that  he
will respond well if placed back into the military environment.

The applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates the narrative  reason  for  his
discharge as “Personality Disorder” although  he  was  not  diagnosed
with a personality disorder or maladaptive personality traits on Axis
II of the formal  psychiatric  diagnosis.   The  DoD  uses  the  term
“Personality Disorder” administratively on the DD Form 214 to include
all unsuiting character and behavior disorders  including  Adjustment
Disorder, Personality Disorders, and Impulse Control Disorders.  This
is confusing because it is different from how the term is used in the
Diagnostic and Statistical  Manual  of  Mental  Disorders.   Previous
service regulations  used  the  more  inclusive  and  less  confusing
“character and behavior disorder.”

Since the applicant was not diagnosed with  a  personality  disorder,
the BCMR Medical Consultant recommends that the narrative  reason  be
changed.  He states that the RE code should not be changed.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC recommends denial of the applicant’s request to  change  his  RE
code.  Based  on  the  documentation  in  the  file,  they  find  his
discharge consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements
of the discharge regulation.

The 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 27 Feb 04 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice.  We note that the Air Force  has
administratively corrected the applicant’s DD Form 214 to reflect the
narrative reason for separation as “Secretarial Authority.”  We  took
notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging  the  merits
of his request to change his RE code;  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 regarding his “2C” RE code.  Therefore, 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 Docket Number  BC-2003-
01878 in Executive Session on 1 April 2004, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
      Ms. Martha A. Maust, Member
      Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 May 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant,
                dated 18 Dec 03.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 20 Feb 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Feb 04.




                                   ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
                                   Panel Chair