RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03529
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.00
      XXXXXXXXXXX      COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  3 Aug 07


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed  to  one  that  will
allow his entry into military service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He did not have a Personality Disorder; rather, he had  a  personality
conflict with his supervisor.  He made the decision to get out in  his
best interest; otherwise, he would be in jail because  his  supervisor
threatened him with jail time.

In support of his appeal, applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214
and a copy of an application to the Air Force Discharge  Review  Board
(AFDRB).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 20 Sep  01.   He
received two enlisted performance reports (EPRs) during  his  service.
The first EPR closed on 19 May 03 and was a referral  report  with  an
overall rating of “2.”  The next report  was  commander  directed  and
closed on 30 Nov 03.  It was also a referral, with an  overall  rating
of “3.”

On 9 Feb 04, his squadron commander notified him he  was  recommending
his discharge from the Air Force for a mental disorder and that if the
recommendation  was  approved,  the  applicant’s  service   would   be
characterized as honorable.

The reason for the commander’s action  was  a  diagnosis  by  a  staff
psychiatrist that the applicant  had  Attention  Deficit/Hyperactivity
Disorder (AD/HD) and Personality  Disorder  not  otherwise  specified.
The following derogatory information was  provided  to  the  discharge
authority as part of the applicant’s overall military service  record,
but was not considered as a basis for the administrative discharge  or
characterization of service:

        a.  Applicant received a letter of counseling (LOC) on 18  Sep
03 for a duty related safety offense on 16 Sep 03.

        b.  Applicant received a letter of counseling on 18 Sep 03 for
failing to maintain his room within cleanliness standards on or  about
15 Sep 03.

        c.  Applicant was  verbally  counseled  for  failure  to  wear
protective gear while rollerblading on 16 Apr 03.

        d.  Applicant was punished under Article 15 on 8  May  03  for
failure to wear protective gear while  rollerblading  on  17  Apr  03,
after several counselings by his supervisor.

        e.  Applicant received a letter of reprimand (LOR) on  18  Mar
03 for disrespect to an NCO, reporting for duty in a  soiled  uniform,
and not being properly shaven.

        f.  Applicant received a LOR on 12 Mar 03  for  being  out  of
dress and  appearance  standards  and  reporting  late  to  his  first
sergeant.

        g.  Applicant received a LOC on 3 Feb  03  for  his  hair  not
being within dress and appearance standards.

        h.  Applicant received a LOR on  29  Jan  03  for  failure  to
report to duty.

        i.  Applicant received a LOR on 11 Dec  02  for  reporting  to
duty six hours late on 30 Nov 02.

The applicant acknowledged receipt on 9 Feb 03, consulted counsel, and
did not submit any statements in his behalf.  The applicant’s squadron
commander  recommended  to  the  wing  commander  the   applicant   be
discharged for the reason  indicated  above.   The  wing  staff  judge
advocate reviewed the recommendation and found it  legally  sufficient
and recommended the wing commander direct  the  applicant’s  discharge
from  service  with  an  honorable  discharge  without  probation  and
rehabilitation.  On  19  Feb  04,  the  wing  commander  directed  the
applicant be discharged  from  service  with  an  honorable  discharge
pursuant to the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Discharge of
Airmen, paragraph 5.11.9, Mental Disorders.  The wing commander denied
the applicant probation and rehabilitation.  The applicant received  a
“2C” RE code, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge.”

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  Based on  the
documentation on file in the master personnel records,  the  discharge
was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the
discharge regulation.  The applicant did not submit  any  evidence  or
identify any errors or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the  discharge
processing.

The 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
20 Jan 06 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a  response
has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Air Force
office of primary responsibility and adopt its 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-
03529 in Executive Session on 2 March 2006, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas, Panel Chair
      Mr. James L. Sommer, Member
      Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Nov 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Jan 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jan 06.




                                   MARILYN M. THOMAS
                                   Panel Chair