RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02196
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  18 JAN 2006


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  narrative  reason  for   separation   and   his   reenlistment
eligibility (RE)  code  of  2C  (Involuntarily  separated  with  an
honorable   discharge;   or    entry-level    separation    without
characterization of service) be changed.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He  was  misdiagnosed  with  personality  disorder.   While   being
diagnosed he was prescribed Zoloft and Valium.   The  medicine  did
the total opposite of what was intended.  The  medication  was  for
someone with a disorder which he  did  not  have.   Otherwise,  the
medication would have worked.

Prior  to  entering  the  Air  Force,   he   received   the   “most
distinguished graduate award” from the Youth Challenge Academy.  He
was married after graduation, and in less than a month, he was sent
to basic military training.

In technical school, his wife joined him and informed him that they
were having a child.  His test scores went from perfect  to  barely
passing in no time.  He was advised to see the first  sergeant  and
the chaplain.  After September 11, he was advised to send his  wife
home and that deployment was imminent.  He was  terrified  that  he
would not be able to see his daughter born.  He was referred  to  a
psychologist by  the  chaplain,  in  hopes  of  again  finding  his
ambition to serve his country.  Instead, he was  advised  the  only
way to see his daughter born was to get out of  the  military.   He
was under a lot of stress and made the biggest mistake of his  life
and got out of the Air Force.  It was a mistake, not a disorder, as
diagnosed.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement;
a copy of DD Form 214, Certificate of  Release  or  Discharge  from
Active Duty, dated 5 Dec  01;  a  psychological  evaluation,  dated
27 May 04; a copy of his honorable discharge  certificate  and  his
youth challenge academy certificate of graduation.

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


___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  27  Mar  01  for  a
period of four years.

On  23  Oct  01,   the   squadron   section   commander   initiated
administrative discharge action against the applicant for a  mental
disorder.  The reason for the proposed action was on 14 Sep 01,  he
was diagnosed as having an  antisocial  personality  disorder  with
additional cluster B personality traits (severe)  as  described  in
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV),
which was severe enough that his ability to function effectively in
the  military  was  significantly  impaired.   His   disorder   was
evidenced by anger, extreme mood swings, and anxiety.

On that same date, he waived his right to consult  counsel  and  to
submit statements on his own behalf.  On 25 Oct  01,  the  attorney
advisor found the  case  file  legally  sufficient  to  support  an
honorable discharge from  the  Air  Force,  without  probation  and
rehabilitation  (P&R).   On  13 Nov 01,  the  discharge   authority
directed applicant be honorably discharged and determined that  P&R
was not deemed appropriate.

On 5 Dec 01, the applicant was honorably discharged, by  reason  of
personality disorder, and was issued an RE  code  of  2C.   He  was
credited with 8 months and 9 days of active duty service.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  AFBCMR  Medical  Consultant  states  that  the  applicant  was
discharged  for  unsuitability  due  to  personality  disorder,  on
5 Dec 01, after 8 months and 9 days on active duty and now requests
his records be changed to show a  different  reason  for  discharge
that would permit him to reenlist.

Applicant began basic military training (BMT) and on day three  was
presented to the emergency department with anxiety that began eight
hours after arriving at BMT.   He  was  diagnosed  with  adjustment
disorder with anxious mood.   The  evaluating  psychologist  judged
that he could continue training and recommended he be  returned  to
duty.  Upon completion of  BMT,  he  arrived  at  technical  school
training and experienced marital and financial  problems  resulting
in referral to the Family Advocate Program,  manifested  difficulty
with anger control, experienced mood swings and  multiple  physical
complaints  with  normal  medical  evaluations.   Evaluations  over
several weeks resulted in diagnoses of  mild  posttraumatic  stress
disorder (presumed due to pre-service trauma) that was  not  severe
enough to interfere with duty, alcohol dependence,  and  antisocial
personality disorder with additional cluster B personality  traits.
The personality disorder  was  determined  to  be  the  predominant
condition and was considered so severe as to impair the applicant’s
ability  to  continue  to  serve.   The  mental  health  evaluation
recommended administrative discharge for unsuitability.

Applicant  experienced  symptoms  of  anxiety,  mood   instability,
multiple somatic complaints requiring frequent  medical  attention,
anger and impulse control difficulty  in  the  setting  of  marital
discord and difficulty in the military training environment.

Personality disorders are enduring patterns of maladjustment in the
individual’s  personality  structure,  which  are   not   medically
disqualifying but may render the individual unsuitable for  further
military  service  and  may  be   cause   for   administrative   or
disciplinary  action  by  the  individual’s  unit  commander.    By
definition, a  personality  disorder  is  an  enduring  pattern  of
thinking, inner experience, feeling, and behaving that is pervasive
and inflexible, is relatively stable over time, deviates  from  the
individual’s cultural norms, and causes distress or  impairment  in
social  and  or  occupational  functioning.   The  fact  that   the
applicant is doing well  at  this  time  does  not  contradict  the
diagnosis since symptoms wax and wane according  to  situation  and
stress.   His  history  of  personal  problems  that  resulted   in
significant impairment of occupational  functioning  combined  with
the results of the psychological evaluation indicate that he is  at
risk for recurrent problems under similar circumstances of military
occupational  and  personal  stress.   A  history  of   personality
disorder severe  enough  to  warrant  administrative  discharge  is
permanently  disqualifying  for  reenlistment  into  the  military.
Action and disposition  in  this  case  are  proper  and  equitable
reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement  the
law.  It is his opinion that no change in the records is warranted.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 12 May 05 for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).

___________________________________________________________________

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.  We took notice of
the applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the
case.  However, we found no evidence that the applicant’s discharge
or reason for separation were in error or contrary to the governing
Air Force instruction.   Additionally,  at  the  time  members  are
separated from the Air Force, they  are  furnished  a  Reenlistment
Eligibility (RE) code predicated upon the quality of their  service
and circumstances of their separation.  Applicant’s RE code  of  2C
accurately reflects his involuntary separation  with  an  honorable
characterization of service.  The applicant’s case has undergone an
exhaustive review by the BCMR Medical Consultant and  and  we  find
that no evidence has been presented to overcome his  assessment  of
the case.  After a thorough review of  the  evidence  submitted  in
support of this appeal, including the  27  May  2004  psychological
evaluation, we are not persuaded that the applicant  has  been  the
victim of an error or injustice.   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 AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2004-02196 in Executive Session  on  23  June  2005,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Mr. Christopher D. Carey, Member
      Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Jul 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 10 May 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 May 05.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair