RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02286
            INDEX CODE:  100.00, 110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  30 APRIL 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He does not have a personality disorder and his adjustment disorder  is  now
resolved.  His RE code has barred him from returning to  another  branch  of
the military.  He was evaluated at the Army Medical  Center  in  Germany  in
November 2003,  and  his  medical  records  indicated  he  was  treated  for
“adjustment  disorder”  not  “personality  disorder.”    Treatment   of   an
adjustment disorder as in his case does not warrant a reentry  code  of  2C.
His diagnosis was normal  (as  stated  in  his  medical  records).   He  was
cleared and sent back to his duty station.

He was evaluated by a psychologist at the Naval Medical Center on 5 Jul  05,
the evaluation stated he was medically fit and cleared to return to duty.

He enlisted in the Air Force at the age of 17 and  his  maturity  level  was
low.  He is now 21 years old (as of 29 Nov 05), matured,  attended  college,
and is employed.

He is working with a Navy recruiter and all they are waiting for is for  his
separation code to be changed to a minimum of “1C” [sic].

In support of his request, applicant provided his personal  statements,  his
DD Form 214, Certificate of  Release  or  Discharge  from  Active  Duty,  an
extract from his military medical records, and  a  Chronological  Record  of
Medical Care Health Record from the Naval Medical Center.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 1 Oct 02,  for  a  period
of six years in the grade of airman.

On 2 Feb 04, the squadron commander  notified  the  applicant  that  he  was
recommending he be  discharged  from  the  Air  Force  for  Conditions  That
Interfered With Military Service, Mental Disorders.  The applicant  received
impatient mental health services at a Psychiatric Hospital from 30 Nov 03  –
5 Dec 03, for problems related to depression,  anger,  military  adjustment,
and a suicidal gesture.  Applicant was evacuated from  a  deployed  location
for these problems and was diagnosed with  Adjustment  Disorder  with  Mixed
Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct and Personality Disorder.  He  exhibited
passive-aggressive personality features manifested  in  problems  with  mood
(angry and irritable) and conduct (argumentative and trouble with  authority
figures).

The applicant had additional disciplinary actions for  misconduct  including
two Letters of Admonishment and  five  Letters  of  Reprimand  for  sleeping
while on duty, failed room inspection, dereliction as a door guard,  failure
to go, and failure to obey.

On 2 Feb 04, applicant acknowledged receipt of  the  discharge  notification
and after  consulting  with  legal  counsel  waived  his  rights  to  submit
statements in his own behalf.

The Wing Acting Staff Judge Advocate found the case file legally  sufficient
and recommended the applicant  be  separated  with  an  honorable  discharge
without probation  and  rehabilitation.   On    17  Feb  04,  the  discharge
authority approved the separation and directed the applicant  be  discharged
with an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

On 24 Feb 04, applicant was honorably discharged in  the  grade  of  airman,
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).  He served 1 year, 4 months, and  24  days  of  active  military
service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied,  and  that
no change in the records is warranted.  The  preponderance  of  evidence  of
the record clearly shows the applicant was  unsuited  for  military  service
based on a pattern of minor misconduct  and  emotional,  psychological,  and
behavior  patterns  consistent  with  personality  disorder  and  adjustment
disorder.  Although he is motivated to serve, the fact that he may be  doing
well presently does not predict he will not  experience  recurring  symptoms
preventing performance of military duties in response  to  similar  personal
or occupational stressors as well as the stressful  conditions  of  military
duties during  deployments,  combat,  and  operational  tours.   Action  and
disposition in this case are  proper  and  equitable  reflecting  compliance
with Air Force directives that implement the law.

The applicant submits a psychological evaluation performed by the  Navy  for
purposes of obtaining a waiver for entry into the Navy.   A  review  of  the
report reflects that the Navy psychologist did not have  the  mental  health
or  discharge  documents  from  the  Air  Force.   Although  the   applicant
portrayed himself in the best  light,  psychological  testing  results  were
still indicative of  anti-social  personality  traits.   The  psychologist’s
interpretation of the testing he administered resonates with the  experience
of the applicant  while  on  active  duty  in  the  Air  Force.   Since  the
evaluation was a one time evaluation without  corroborating  information,  a
diagnosis of personality disorder could not be  rendered  based  on  testing
alone.  No mental disease (depression,  psychosis,  etc.)  was  noted.   The
psychologist made no  recommendation  regarding  entry  into  the  Navy  but
cautioned that if  a  waiver  was  granted  by  the  Navy,  results  of  the
psychological testing were to be well documented in  personnel  and  medical
records.

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He requests that the terminology, which  reads,  “Personality  Disorder”  be
removed from his DD Form 214.  He has  an  opportunity  to  gain  employment
with a government agency and they are requesting a copy of his DD Form  214.
 This language will stand against him  to  obtain  employment  opportunities
not only with this organization, but others as well.  He  realizes  the  Air
Force had to document several events that occurred while he  was  on  active
duty and does not underscore it by any means.  He was under a great deal  of
stress during this time and stress played a huge factor with respect to  his
conduct.  He takes full responsibility for his actions.  He is now 21  years
old and is in the process of building a career.  It would  severely  tarnish
him to have this language on his DD Form 214.

The applicant’s complete response is at 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.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the  case;  however,  we  agree
with the opinion and recommendation  of  the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  and
adopt his 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.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issue  involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
02286 in Executive Session on 14 November 2006, under the provisions of  AFI
36-2603:

      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
      Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member

The following documentary evidence  pertaining  to  Docket  Number  BC-2005-
02286 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Jul 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated  29  Sep
06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Oct 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Oct 06.



                                             LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                             Panel Chair