RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02839
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
      XXXXXXXXX  COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 18 Mar 07

____________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reentry (RE) code be changed from 2C to one that would allow him
reentry in the Air Force.

____________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The applicant was not informed  about  the  reentry  code.   He  joined  the
military because of his parents and at the time, he  wasn’t  ready  for  the
military.  He has matured enough to understand the  value  of  the  military
and would like to serve his country.  He wants to  change  his  RE  code  to
something that will allow him to reenlist in the US Air Guard.

In support of his request, applicant  provided  reference  letter  from  his
current employer and a DD Form 214.

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

____________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 Feb 00 in the grade  of
airman basic.

On 6 Jul 00, the applicant was notified by his commander of  his  intent  to
recommend administrative discharge.  The specific  reason  for  this  action
was a Clinical Psychologist at the Naval Ambulatory Care Center  deemed  the
applicant fit for return to full duty  and  strongly  recommended  that  the
applicant be expeditiously considered for an Entry  Level  Separation.   The
applicant  was  initially  seen  for  evaluation  of  depression,   suicidal
ideation, anger,  emotional  lability,  and  poor  adjustment  to  the  USAF
following his discharge from a civilian psychiatric hospital  where  he  was
admitted following a suicide attempt/gesture by overdose.   In  review,  the
applicant began to experience difficulties almost immediately  upon  service
entry  and  had  already  been  reclassified  secondary  to  prior  training
failure.  The applicant also has  an  extensive  history  of  problems  that
existed prior to entry that include  depression,  disrespect  for  authority
and difficulty following rules.  He exhibited a lack of self-discipline  and
was reluctant to make the necessary effort to meet Air  Force  standards  of
conduct and duty performance.  The applicant expressed  desire  to  separate
and felt it would be more beneficial to him.  The applicant  was  judged  to
represent a continuing risk to self,  others,  and  government  property  if
retained in the Air Force.

He  was  separated  on  26  Jul  00  with  an  uncharacterized   entry-level
separation.  He served 5 months and 18 days on active duty.

____________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.

The  Medical  Consultant  states  that  Airmen   may   be   administratively
discharged by their commander based upon the presence of  certain  unsuiting
physical or  mental  conditions  that  interfere  with  assignment  or  duty
performance,  that  otherwise  do   not   warrant   disability   processing.
Unsuiting conditions subject to administrative  discharge  include  but  are
not   limited   to   Adjustment   Disorders   and   Personality   Disorders.
Manifestations can include depressed  mood,  anxiety,  and  disturbances  of
conduct.  Manifestations of personality and  adjustment  disorders  wax  and
wane over time depending on the nature and degree of  stressors  present  at
any given time.

The fact that he is functioning well at this time does not predict  that  he
will respond well to the stresses of  military  operations,  deployment,  or
combat when he  is  separated  from  his  familiar  surroundings  and  usual
support system of family and friends.  His past experience of  inability  to
cope  with  the  military  training  environment   is   predictive   of   an
unacceptable risk for recurrence if re-exposed to  the  rigors  of  military
training and service and the reenlistment code should not be changed.

The Medical Consultant’s complete 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  2  Oct
06 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office  has
received no response.

____________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing  law  or
regulations.

2.  The application was not 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  AFBCMR  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.   We  have  seen  no  evidence
which would lead us  to  believe  he  would  now  be  able  to  successfully
function in the military environment or that he  would  be  able  to  comply
with the demands of military necessity  if  a  similar  situation  occurred.
Accordingly, it is our opinion that the applicant’s records  should  not  be
changed.


THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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-2005-02839 in Executive Session on 2 Nov 06, under the provisions of  AFI
36-2603:


      Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
      Ms. Maureen Higgins, Member
      Mr. Todd L. Schafer, Member

All members voted to deny the application, as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Sep 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated  26
Sep 06.
      Exhibit D   Memorandum, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Sep 06




                 JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                 Panel Chair