RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02727
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED: No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be  changed  to  allow  him  to
reenlist in the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he enlisted in the Air Force he was unsure of what he  wanted  to
do.  He asked the recruiter for advice on  selecting  a  job  and  the
recruiter informed him he could pick any job to get into the Air Force
and  upon  completing  basic  training  request  reclassification  for
another career field.  He completed basic training  and  upon  arrival
for technical training inquired about job  reclassification.   No  one
seemed to care until he spoke with his squadron section commander.  He
informed his commander of his desire in seeking job  reclassification.
His commander informed him if he volunteered for  a  Command  Directed
Evaluation he could possibly get a reclassification and to think about
it and talk it over with the Chaplain because he could  be  separated.
He spoke with the Chaplain and the Chaplain informed him it was  great
that the squadron section commander said the applicant could volunteer
for the evaluation and that he had  already  won  90  percent  of  the
battle.  He was evaluated by  a  psychologist  at  the  mental  health
clinic and was told later that day he would be separated.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 January 2003, for  a
period of six years, as an airman basic with a $4,000.00 signing bonus
in the Air  Force  Specialty  Code  (AFSC)  2A333,  Tactical  Aircraft
Maintenance.

A medical record entry by the Mental Health Clinic on 10  April  2003,
indicates the applicant was experiencing  difficulty  in  coping  with
stress, depressed mood, and an inability adapting to  the  demands  of
his military occupation.  He was diagnosed by the Mental Health Clinic
as having an Adjustment Disorder, occupation problem and was counseled
on stress management.

On 30 April 2003, the applicant’s commander referred him for a  mental
health evaluation.

On 6  May  2003,  the  mental  health  evaluation  was  conducted  and
diagnosed the applicant  with  an  Adjustment  Disorder,  acute,  with
depressed mood,  and  Personality  Disorder  Not  Otherwise  Specified
(dependent  traits).   The  evaluation  determined   the   applicant’s
condition rendered  him  unfit  for  continued  military  service  and
recommended the applicant be administratively discharged.

On 23 May 2003, applicant was notified of his  commander's  intent  to
recommend him for discharge from the Air Force for a mental disorder.

The commander stated the proposed discharge was  based  on  the  6 May
2003, diagnosis  by  a  Clinical  Psychologist  which  determined  the
applicant had an Adjustment Disorder, Acute, with Depressed Mood,  and
Personality  Disorder  Not  Otherwise   Specified   (NOS)   (dependent
features), which was  so  severe  that  it  affected  his  ability  to
function in a military environment.

In a 23 May 2003, supplemental  performance  evaluation  the  squadron
section commander stated the applicant’s condition interfered with his
ability to perform his duties “in that he is  depressed  and  detached
most of the time…Since his  arrival,  he  has  expressed  feelings  of
insecurity, and inferiority, and poor judgment…Additionally, AB _  has
difficulty dealing with  stress  effectively…These  emotions  are  not
conducive to high responsibility jobs and occupations.”

The commander advised the applicant of  his  right  to  consult  legal
counsel and that legal counsel had been obtained to assist him; and to
submit statements in his own behalf, or waive the above  rights  after
consulting with counsel.

The commander indicated in her recommendation for discharge action the
applicant was  counseled  on  numerous  occasions  on  the  Air  Force
expectations of airmen regarding professionalism, being  a  productive
member and the resources available  to  accomplish  these  objectives.
The commander further stated she directed the applicant to re-evaluate
his decision-making process and priorities in order to make  the  best
decision concerning continuous service in the Air Force.

On 27 May 2003, after consulting with counsel, the  applicant  invoked
his right to submit a statement.

On 4 June 2003, a legal review was conducted in which the staff  judge
advocate (SJA) recommended the applicant be discharged with an  entry-
level separation.

On 6 June 2003, the discharge  authority  approved  and  directed  the
applicant be discharged with an entry-level separation.

The applicant was separated on 9 June 2003, in  the  grade  of  airman
basic with an uncharacterized entry-level  separation.   He  served  4
months and 19 days of active duty service.  He received an RE code  of
“2C” which means "Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge;
or entry level separation without service characterization."

Applicant does not contest the accuracy  of  the  RE  code  and  after
reviewing the applicable instruction, AFI 36-2606, it appears  the  RE
code is correct.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief  Medical  Consultant,  AFBCMR,  states  that  an  Adjustment
Disorder  and  Personality  Disorder  are  conditions  that  are   not
medically disqualifying or unfitting conditions for  continued  active
service, however, it may be determined the servicemember is unsuitable
for further military service.  An 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 an Adjustment Disorder is  the
condition  resolves  with  relief  of  the   stressors.    Personality
disorders are life long patterns of maladjustment in the  individual’s
personality which interfere with the individual’s  normal  social  and
occupational functioning and may impair the  individual’s  ability  to
cope with stress.  The applicant was diagnosed  with  Personality  and
Adjustment Disorders.  The Adjustment Disorder may  resolve  once  the
stressors are eliminated from the individual’s environment.   But  the
maladaptive personality  traits  of  a  Personality  Disorder  do  not
resolve.  It appears the applicant may be  functioning  well  at  this
time which confirms the diagnosis of an Adjustment Disorder, but  this
is not an indication that the  applicant  will  respond  well  to  the
stresses of a military environment.  The  Medical  Consultant  further
believes that if the  applicant  were  re-exposed  to  the  rigors  of
military training and service, it would put him at a significant  risk
of recurrence of the symptoms of an Adjustment Disorder.  The  Medical
Consultant further states that the action and disposition of this case
were proper and equitable and recommends no change in the  applicant’s
records.

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

HQ AFPC/DPPRS states the Department of Defense (DOD) determined  that,
if a member served less than 180 days of continuous active service, he
would  receive  an  entry-level   separation/uncharacterized   service
characterization when separation was  initiated.   The  separation  is
uncharacterized because it would be  unfair  to  the  member  and  the
service to try  and  characterize  the  limited  time  served.   DPPRS
further states  the  discharge  was  consistent  with  procedural  and
substantive requirements  of  the  discharge  regulation.   Also,  the
discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge  authority.
The applicant has not provided any evidence identifying any errors  or
injustices in the processing of his discharge.  Based on the  evidence
provided, they recommend the requested relief be denied.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
13 February 2004, for review  and  response.   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 careful  consideration  of
the circumstances of this case and the documentation provided  by  the
applicant, we are not persuaded that  the  discharge  action  and  the
resulting reenlistment code he  received  were  in  error  or  unjust.
Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however,  we  agree  with  the
opinions  and  recommendations  of  the  Air  Force  and  adopt  their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not
been the victim of an error  or  injustice.   Shortly  after  entering
technical training, the applicant underwent a Mental Health Evaluation
and was diagnosed with Personality and Adjustment Disorders.  As noted
by the AFBCMR  Medical  Consultant,  although  the  applicant  may  be
functioning well at this time, this does not indicate he will  respond
well  should  he  be  reintroduced  to  the  rigors  of   a   military
environment.  The applicant has not established that a different  type
of job would not trigger the same reaction he had upon  initial  entry
in the military.  Therefore, in view of the above and 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-02727 in Executive Session on 23 March 2004, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
                 Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Jul 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated
                 8 Jan 04.
      Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Feb 04.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Feb 04.




                       RICHARD A. PETERSON
                       Panel Chair