RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                        DOCKET  NUMBER:   BC-2005-
01632
                                             INDEX  CODE:   100.00;
110.02

                                             COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO



MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  20 NOVEMBER 2006


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her narrative reason for separation  and  reenlistment  eligibility
(RE) code be changed to allow reentry in the military.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was given an honorable discharge and,  therefore,  would  never
have guessed she was given a  negative  RE  code.   She  was  never
alerted that she would not be able to rejoin the military.

She developed several stressors which contributed to her depression
and subsequent discharge from the Air Force.  Her mental health  is
in top shape.  She would like her RE code changed so that  she  can
join the US Navy.

In support of her appeal, she provided a personal statement  and  a
copy of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or  Discharge  from
Active Duty.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular  Air
Force on 5 Mar 97, for a period of  four  years  in  the  grade  of
airman basic.  She served on continuous active duty and entered her
last enlistment on 10 Jan 01, for four years.   Her  highest  grade
held was staff sergeant (E-5).

On 22 Apr 04, the squadron commander notified the applicant that he
was recommending she be discharged for a condition that  interfered
with  military  service,   specifically   mental   disorders.    He
recommended  an  honorable  discharge  based  on  a  Mental  Health
Evaluation reflecting the following diagnoses:  Axis I:  Adjustment
Disorder with Depressed Mood, and Axis II:   Personality  Disorder,
Not Otherwise Specified.  It was determined  that  her  ability  to
function in a military environment was significantly  impaired  and
that she was unsuitable for continued military service.

On 27 Apr 04,  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the  discharge
notification  and,  after  consulting  with  counsel,   offered   a
conditional waiver of her rights associated with an  administrative
discharge board, contingent on receiving no less than an  honorable
discharge.  She indicated she would be submitting  matters  in  her
own behalf; however, none were submitted.

The  Wing  Staff  Judge  Advocate  found  the  case  file   legally
sufficient and recommended  the  applicant  be  separated  with  an
honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation.  On 5 May
04, the discharge authority approved the discharge.

On  4  Jun  04,  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  under   the
provisions of AFI 36-3208, by reason of personality  disorder,  and
was issued an RE Code  of  2C,  [involuntarily  Separated  with  an
honorable discharge].  She served on active duty for a period of  7
years and 3 months.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  found  the  discharge  was  consistent   with   the
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation
and  recommended  disapproval.   Additionally,  the  discharge  was
within the discretion of the discharge authority.  They also  noted
the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or
injustices that occurred in the discharge  processing,  or  provide
any facts warranting a change to her reenlistment eligibility code.

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

The BCMR Medical Consultant opined that no change in the records is
warranted.  The applicant developed symptoms of Adjustment Disorder
with depressed mood that prevented her from fulfilling her military
obligations.  An underlying personality disorder was also diagnosed
that predisposed her to the development of these  symptoms  in  the
setting of various stressors that are often  experienced  by  other
military members.  The  mental  health  evaluation  considered  the
stressors, her  clinical  responses,  diagnoses  and  responses  to
treatment in arriving  at  the  recommendation  for  administrative
discharge for unsuitability.

Adjustment Disorder and Personality Disorder  are  conditions  that
alone or together may render an individual unsuitable for  military
service.   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   (including   suicidal   ideation   and
behaviors).  Adjustment Disorder when severe  enough  is  unsuiting
for  continued  military  service  and  cause  for   administrative
discharge.  Personality disorders are not a disease,  but  lifelong
patterns of maladjustment in the individual’s personality structure
and  coping  skills  which  are  not  medically  disqualifying   or
unfitting but may render  the  individual  unsuitable  for  further
military service and may be cause for administrative action by  the
individual’s unit commander.  Personality disorders are  frequently
exacerbated  by  stress  and  frequently  present   with   symptoms
consistent with Adjustment Disorder.

Adjustment and personality disorders, or weaknesses of coping  that
result in behavior that is disruptive to the unit or  prevents  the
member from the effective and reliable performance of duties render
that member unsuitable for military service.  Because the nature of
these conditions  indicate  a  long  term  pattern  of  perceiving,
thinking, behaving, and  coping,  the  symptoms  bringing  them  to
medical attention are likely to recur in an  unpredictable  fashion
under other circumstances  of  stress  including  times  when  such
problems can least be afforded by  the  military  unit.   Stressful
life circumstances such as marital  discord,  divorce,  illness  or
death of a parent, are  commonly  experienced  by  members  of  the
military, the majority of whom continue to function effectively  in
their jobs in spite of their  sad  feelings.   When  an  individual
responds to a common  life  stressor  to  the  degree  of  becoming
dysfunctional, their ability to cope with the stresses of  military
service,  operational  environments  and  combat  is  called   into
question.

The fact applicant  is  functioning  well  at  this  time  at  home
confirms her diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder, however it does  not
predict that she will respond well  to  the  stresses  of  military
operations, deployment, or combat when she is  separated  from  her
familiar surroundings  and  usual  support  system  of  family  and
friends.  Her past experience is predictive of  an  increased  risk
for recurrence of symptoms of Adjustment Disorder if re-exposed  to
the rigors of military training and service  and  the  reenlistment
code should not be changed.  Action and disposition  in  this  case
are proper and  equitable  reflecting  compliance  with  Air  Force
directives that implement the law.

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

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 27 May 05, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).

On 13 Jun 05, a copy of the BCMR  Medical  Consultant’s  evaluation
was forwarded to the applicant for  review/comment.   To  date,  no
response has been received (Exhibit F).

___________________________________________________________________

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 took notice of
the applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the
case; 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.   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-2005-
01632 in Executive Session on 21 July 2005, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
      Mr. Albert C. Ellett, Member
      Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated Apr 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 26 May 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 10 Jun 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 May 05.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Jun 05, w/atch.




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair