RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02107

            COUNSEL:  DISABLED AMERICAN
                          VETERANS

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason  for  separation  be  changed  from  “Personality
Disorder” to “Depression.”

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes the diagnosis of a personality  disorder  was  inaccurate,
and that a diagnosis of depression would have been more accurate.

He is currently obtaining treatment from mental health professionals.

In support of his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  a  copy  of  his
separation document and statements from a therapist and  the  Disabled
American Veterans (DAV).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  4  Mar  98  for  a
period of six years in the grade of airman.

On 18 Dec 00, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent  to
recommend his discharge for conditions that interfered  with  military
service - mental disorders.  The specific reasons were:  On 24 Oct 00,
the applicant was diagnosed with an  adjustment  disorder  with  mixed
disturbance of emotions and conduct and avoidant personality disorder;
on 16 Nov 00, he received a letter of counseling (LOC) for  disobeying
a lawful order issued to him by a noncommissioned officer (NCO) by not
being at his appointed place of duty; and, on 7 Dec 00, he received an
LOC for disobeying a lawful order issued  to  him  by  a  commissioned
officer by reporting to his place of duty in his battle dress  uniform
(BDU) when he  had  been  instructed  to  report  in  mission-oriented
protective posture (MOPP) condition 2.  The applicant was  advised  of
his  rights  in  the  matter  and  an  honorable  discharge  would  be
recommended.

The Office of the Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge  case  file
to be legally sufficient and recommended that the discharge  authority
direct the applicant  be  discharged  with  service  characterized  as
honorable.

On 27 Dec 00, the discharge authority approved  the  discharge  action
and directed the applicant be furnished an honorable discharge.

On 29 Dec  00,  the  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Personality  Disorder).   He  was  credited
with 2 years, 9 months, and 26 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Medical Consultant recommended denial  noting  the  applicant  was
administratively  discharged  for  unsuitability   due   to   avoidant
personality disorder.  During the period he was on  active  duty,  the
applicant also experienced  symptoms  of  depressed  mood  related  to
situational stresses of military service diagnosed  as  an  adjustment
disorder.  The applicant’s symptom of depressed mood was diagnosed  by
several  different  psychologists  as  an  adjustment  disorder.   The
evidence of  record  shows  the  applicant’s  symptoms  improved  with
anticipated separation consistent with the diagnosis.  Over  one  year
following his discharge,  the  applicant  experienced  depressed  mood
diagnosed as major depressive disorder, recurrent, that  responded  to
treatment.  According to the Medical Consultant, a diagnosis of  major
depressive disorder over one year after separation does  not  indicate
that the applicant’s diagnoses were wrong while on active  duty.   The
presence of avoidant personality disorder predisposes an individual to
the development of adjustment disorder and  depressive  disorder,  and
contributes to the resulting social and occupational difficulties.   A
diagnosis of an adjustment disorder or depressive  disorder  does  not
exclude a personality disorder diagnosis since they  can  and  do  co-
exist in many individuals.  In  the  Medical  Consultant’s  view,  the
action  and  disposition  in  this  case  were  proper  and  equitable
reflecting compliance with Air Force  directives  that  implement  the
law, and no change in the records is warranted.

A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is  at  Exhibit
C.

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial indicating the discharge was  consistent
with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge
regulation, and was within the discretion of the discharge  authority.
In their view, the applicant submitted no new evidence  or  identified
any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge process.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPRS evaluation, with attachment,  is  at
Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on  19
Dec 03 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

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.   The  applicant's  complete
submission was thoroughly  reviewed  and  his  contentions  were  duly
noted.  However, we do not find  the  applicant’s  assertions  or  the
documentation  presented  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override   the
rationale provided by the  offices  of  primary  responsibility.   The
evidence  of  record  indicates  the   applicant   was   involuntarily
discharged for a personality disorder.  There is no indication in  the
evidence provided that  the  applicant’s  discharge  was  improper  or
contrary to the provisions of the discharge directive under  which  it
was effected.  In view  of  the  foregoing,  and  in  the  absence  of
evidence to the  contrary,  we  adopt  the  Air  Force  rationale  and
conclude that no basis exists to recommend  favorable  action  on  the
applicant’s request  that  his  narrative  reason  for  separation  be
changed.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
2003-02107 in Executive Session on 10 Feb 04, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
      Ms. Sharon B. Seymour, Member
      Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 May 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 17 Nov 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Dec 03, w/atch.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Dec 03.




                                   ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
                                   Panel Chair