RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00527
            INDEX CODE:  100.03
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NOT INDICATED

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  26 AUG 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be  changed  to  allow  him  to
reenter the military.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received an honorable discharge, yet his RE code  disqualifies  him
from reentering the Armed Forces.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic  on
12 March 1997 for a term of 6 years.   On  16  October  1997,  he  was
notified by his commander that he was recommending  he  be  discharged
from the Air Force, due to a mental disorder.   The  reason  for  this
action  was  that  on  25  September  1997,  he  was  diagnosed  by  a
psychologist as having an adjustment disorder,  mixed  disturbance  of
conduct and mood.  His disorder was determined  to  be  so  severe  it
significantly impaired his ability  to  function  effectively  in  the
military environment.  He acknowledged receipt of the notification for
discharge on 16 October 1997, and waived his rights  to  consult  with
legal counsel and submit statements in his own behalf.  The base legal
office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support an
honorable discharge.  On 22  October  1997,  he  was  administratively
discharged  under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-3208,   Administrative
Separation of Airman, (mental disorder), with an honorable  discharge,
and issued an RE code of 2C “Involuntarily separated with an honorable
discharge; or  entry  level  separation  without  characterization  of
service”.  He served 7 months and 11 days total active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant opines that a change in the RE  code  that
would allow the applicant to apply for reentry into  military  service
is supported by a preponderance of the evidence of the record.

The applicant was administratively discharged from the Air  force  due
to  unsuitability  with  a  diagnosis  of  adjustment  disorder.   The
diagnosis resulted from three academic failures despite high  aptitude
testing, his clear expression of physical and emotional maladjustment,
and  his  failure  to  improve  with  offered  treatment.   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.  One of the  key  features
of Adjustment Disorder is that the condition typically  resolves  with
relief of the stressors.  Individuals who develop Adjustment  Disorder
due to the stress of the routine rigors of military  service  with  or
without concomitant  personal  issues  are  not  suited  for  military
service  and  are  subject  to  administrative  discharge   by   their
commander.

The fact that he is functioning well at this time at home confirms his
diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder, however it 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  is
predictive of an increased risk for recurrent of debilitating  anxiety
and adjustment disorder  if  re-exposed  to  the  rigors  of  military
training and service.

However, review of the original mental health evaluation  report  does
not reflect severe symptoms, and the recent  psychological  evaluation
ten years later indicates the applicant is  basically  psychologically
healthy.    The   applicant’s   assertion   that   his   developmental
circumstances delayed maturity is a plausible explanation supported by
the submitted evidence.  Evidence that he is performing well in a  job
in a military aviation setting that is also performed by  active  duty
members combined with strong letters of recommendation from pilots and
senior officers familiar with the applicant’s  on-the-job  performance
is further evidence of his contention.  While the recent psychological
evaluation appears to strongly support the  applicant’s  reentry  into
military service, it still raises concern regarding  the  presence  of
maladaptive personality traits that were prominent enough  to  comment
on and that may still predispose  the  applicant  to  difficulty  when
under stress including disappointment if he doesn’t get what he  wants
(for example acceptance for, or  completion  of,  certain  specialized
training) and the Air Force assigns him to a career field meeting  the
needs of the Air Force but not his desires.  After  consultation  with
the Air Force psychiatric consultant, it is felt that evidence of  the
record indicates the applicant may represent  a  reasonable  risk  for
changing the reenlistment code allowing reentry into military service,
especially when considering the current occupational success as a crew
chief at an Air Force base.

Review  of  the  records  clearly  shows  that  his  discharge   under
provisions for  unsuitability  was  proper  and  equitable  reflecting
compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.  However,
the applicant has submitted  evidence  to  support  a  change  of  the
reenlistment code.  Should the Board decide to change the RE code,  it
is not the same as  erasing  the  applicant’s  history  of  adjustment
disorder leading to discharge and it  remains  a  significant  medical
history that should be revealed by the  applicant  in  enlistment  and
commissioning examinations allowing for proper evaluation  and  waiver
processes.

The Medical Consultant’s 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
21 February 2007, for review and comment within 30 days.  As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of an error or injustice.  Even  though  the  applicant  has
provided no evidence to show that his separation was improper  or  not
in compliance with the appropriate Air Force Instructions, it  is  our
opinion that relief is warranted in this  particular  case.   In  this
respect, we note the applicant has  provided  evidence  to  support  a
change of the RE code and the BCMR Medical Consultant also opines that
a change in the RE code is  supported  by  the  preponderance  of  the
evidence of record.  In view of this, we  believe  that  his  RE  code
should be changed to  a  waiverable  code  in  order  to  provide  the
applicant an opportunity to  apply  for  reentry  into  the  military.
Whether or not he is successful  will  depend  on  the  needs  of  the
service and our recommendation in no way guarantees that  he  will  be
allowed to return to any branch of service.  Accordingly, we recommend
that his records be corrected to the extent indicated below.

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(s)   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that at  the  time  of  his
discharge  on  22  October  1997,  he  was  issued   an   Reenlistment
Eligibility (RE) code of 3K.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket  Number  BC-2006-
00527 in Executive Session on 19 April 2007, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:


                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                 Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
                 Ms. Maureen B. Higgins, Member

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


      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Feb 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 20 Feb 07.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Feb 07.





      THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
      Chair



AFBCMR BC-2006-00527




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that at the time of his
discharge on 22 October 1997, he was issued an Reenlistment Eligibility
(RE) code of “3K”.






  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency