RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03658
            INDEX CODE:  110.00, 100.03
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  3 June 2007


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be  changed  to  allow  him  to
obtain a commission in the United States Navy.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He would like to continue to serve his country and be commissioned  as
a Naval officer.  He did not do anything wrong to deserve the RE  code
he received at the time of his discharge.

In support of his request, applicant provides a copy of  his  DD  Form
214.  The applicant’s submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 16 March 2004, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  for
a period of six years.  After completing basic training and  technical
training, the applicant was assigned as a Security Forces  Apprentice.
He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3)
effective and with a date of rank of 30 April 2004.

On 19 January 2005, his commander withdrew the  applicant’s  authority
to  bear  and  have  access  to  firearms  due  to  concern  over  the
applicant’s mental well being.

On 9 June 2005, the applicant had a Commander-Directed  Mental  Health
Evaluation due to concerns regarding the applicant’s  statements  made
to  coworkers  about  thinking  of  suicide  as  well  as  his  3-week
hospitalization for the same.  The attending psychologist’s report  of
evaluation  indicated  the  applicant  met  the  criteria  for   major
depressive  disorder  and  personality  disorder.   His  symptoms   of
depression appeared to be related, at least in  part,  to  bereavement
over the loss of his mother 2 ½ years ago.  The psychologist indicated
that the applicant  was  unfit  for  continued  military  service  and
manifested a mental health disorder so severe that he would be  unable
to continue active duty service.

On 29 June 2005, the applicant received notification that he was being
recommended for discharge  due  to  having  a  mental  condition  that
interfered with military service.  The reason for this action was a  9
June 2005 Mental Health Evaluation, with the diagnosis of DSM IV, Axis
II - Personality Disorder NOS, Schizoid and  Paranoid  Features.   The
applicant acknowledged receipt  of  the  notification.   He  consulted
military legal counsel and declined to submit any  written  statements
in his behalf.  The base legal office reviewed the case and  found  it
legally sufficient to support  separation.   The  discharge  authority
approved the recommended separation and directed that the applicant be
issued an honorable discharge, without probation and rehabilitation.

He was honorably discharged on 13 July 2005 under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-3208 (personality disorder).  He had completed  a  total  of  1
year, 3 months and 28 days.   He received an  RE  Code  of  4K,  which
defined means “Medically disqualified for continued  service,  or  the
airman is pending evaluation by MEB/PEB.”

On 8 December 2005, the Separation Procedures Branch corrected the  DD
Form 214, from 2005 to reflect the RE Code 2C "Involuntarily Separated
with an Honorable Discharge" the Narrative Reason  for  Separation  to
reflect “Personality Disorder” and  his  Separation  Code  to  reflect
“JFX.”  In addition, item 14 was corrected to  reflect  the  “Security
Forces Apprentice Course.”
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  DPPRS  advises  that
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  discharge  was  within
the discretion of the discharge authority. AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at
Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that the diagnoses  he  was  given  that  caused  his
discharge were either made out to be worse than the  situation  really
was or does not apply to him.  He strongly believes that  he  did  not
have a fair chance with his military career and did  not  wish  to  be
discharged.  He has always wanted to serve his country.  He is a proud
citizen of the United States and would like the opportunity to  finish
what  he  started.   He  understands  the  importance   of   following
directions from his superiors.  He humbly asks for another opportunity
to serve his country.  Applicant’s letter,  with  attachments,  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 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.  The applicant  did  not  provide
persuasive evidence showing the information in the discharge case file
was erroneous, his substantial  rights  were  violated,  or  that  his
commanders abused their discretionary authority.  The  RE  code  which
was issued at  the  time  of  the  applicant’s  separation  accurately
reflects the circumstances of his separation and we do not  find  this
code to be in error or unjust.  In view of the foregoing, we  conclude
that no basis exists upon which to recommend favorable action  on  his
request.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
03658 in Executive Session on 31 January 2006, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

                  Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Charlie E. Williams, Jr., Member
                  Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Nov 05, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 12 Dec 05.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Dec 05.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair