THIRD ADDENDUM TO
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02068-4
            INDEX CODE:  110.03

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  reenlistment  eligibility  (RE)  code  and  narrative   reason   for
separation be changed.

___________________________________________________________________


STATEMENT OF FACTS


The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic  on  5
Jul 95 for a term of 4 years.  On 14 Nov  00,  he  was  notified  by  his
commander that he was recommending he be discharged from  the  Air  Force
due to a condition that interferes with military service, specifically  a
mental disorder.  The reason for this action was that  he  was  diagnosed
with a personality disorder comprised of  borderline,  passive-aggressive
and avoidant personality traits.  His disorder was determined  to  be  so
severe that it significantly impaired his ability to function effectively
in the military environment.  He  was  advised  of  his  rights  in  this
matter.  On 15 Dec 00,  he  was  administratively  discharged  under  the
provisions  of  AFI  36-3208,  Administrative   Separation   of   Airmen,
(personality disorder), with an honorable discharge and was issued  a  RE
code of 2C “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry
level  separation  without  characterization  of  service.”   He   served
5 years, 4 months and 11 days total active service.

On 7 Oct 03, a DD Form 215, Correction to DD  Form  214,  Certificate  of
Release or Discharge from  Active  Duty  was  completed  to  correct  the
applicant’s DD Form 214, block 23, from “released from  active  duty”  to
“discharge.”

On  8  Mar  04,  the  applicant's  request  to  change  his  reenlistment
eligibility  (RE)  code  and  his  narrative  reason  for  discharge  was
considered and denied by the Board, see  the  Record  of  Proceedings  at
Exhibit I.

On 31 Jan 04, the applicant submitted additional supporting documentation
through his Congressman.  In his request, he provided  a  statement  from
his physician, who stated that he  would  more  likely  give  a  deferred
diagnosis  at  this  point  regarding  any   kind   of   psychiatric   or
psychological diagnosis.  His physician also stated that if  his  history
as given to him is accurate, it sounds as if the  applicant  might  be  a
very suitable candidate for resumption of active duty  in  the  military.
The applicant’s request for reconsideration was considered and denied  by
the Board on 29 Jun 04.  For an accounting of the facts and circumstances
surrounding the applicant’s request, and the rationale of the decision by
the Board, see the Addendum to Record of Proceedings at Exhibit K.

On 6 Aug 04, the applicant submitted additional supporting  documentation
through his Congressman.  He provided two statements from his physicians.
 The  psychologist  stated  there  appeared  to  have  been  a  Minnesota
Multiphasic  Personality  Inventory-2  (MMPI-2)  of   somewhat   marginal
validity, with the client  attempting  to  place  himself  in  an  overly
positive light.  The profile was formulated using the  elevation  of  the
Mania scale, with a T score of 65.  He further stated that at  that  time
no clinical diagnosis would be assigned based on this  clinical  profile.
The  psychiatrist  stated  neither  his  evaluation  nor  that   of   the
psychological  consultant  could  support  a  diagnosis  of   personality
disorder. For an accounting of the facts  and  circumstances  surrounding
the applicant’s request, and the rationale of the decision by the  Board,
see the Second Addendum to Record of Proceedings at Exhibit M.

On 22 Jun 06, the applicant submitted additional supporting documentation
for consideration. He provided a personal statement, DD Form 2808, report
of Medical Examination, DD Form 2807, Report of Medical  History,  and  a
copy of a Psychiatric Evaluation.  The Psychiatrist  states  he  did  not
find the applicant to  harbor  any  psychiatric  illness  or  personality
disorder.  He has behaved responsibly during the  past  six  years  since
discharge, evinces a normal mental status  examination,  and  has  had  a
psychological evaluation that does  not  indicate  the  presence  of  any
clinically significant psychopathology.  His  prognosis  for  emotionally
stable, productive behavior is good.

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

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial.   The  BCMR   Medical
Consultant states the applicant reports that he  lied  about  his  mental
problems in order to get out of the  Air  Force.   Unfortunately,  it  is
unclear if he  was  untruthful  then  or  now  or  both.   The  Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory following separation was noted  for  an
attempt to portray himself in a more favorable light.  However, even with
a high level of defensiveness, personality traits  that  were  associated
with his in-service problems were detected by this testing  and  reported
by the examining psychologist.

The fact that a Navy reviewer  has  recommended  granting  a  waiver  for
enlistment into the Navy based on the MEPS  exam  does  not  establish  a
basis for the Air Force to do the same.  The reviewer opines that members
who decide they no longer want to be in the service and falsely report or
exaggerate psychological symptoms to get out of their military commitment
are not good candidates for reentry.  This is not a  character  trait  or
behavioral response to  stress  that  is  desirable  in  members  of  the
military services who are required to endure  unique  demands  and  where
opting out may jeopardize the military mission.

His history of personal problems that resulted in significant  impairment
of  occupational  functioning  combined   with   the   results   of   the
psychological evaluation indicate  that  he  is  at  risk  for  recurrent
problems  under  similar  circumstances  of  military  occupational   and
personal  stress.   A  history  of  a  personality   disorder/traits   or
adjustment disorder severe enough to warrant administrative discharge  is
permanently disqualifying for reenlistment into the military.  Action and
disposition in this case are proper and equitable  reflecting  compliance
with Air Force directives that implement the law and  no  change  in  the
record is warranted.

The Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit N.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant  on  15
May 07, for review and comment within 30 days.  As  of  this  date,  this
office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After again reviewing this  application  and  the  evidence  provided  in
support of his appeal, to include  physical  and  psychological  consults
from the Navy, we remain unpersuaded that  the  applicant’s  RE  code  or
narrative reason for separation should be changed.  We note that  the  RE
code that was assigned at the time of his separation accurately  reflects
the circumstances of his separation, and evidence has not  been  provided
that would lead us to believe otherwise.  Therefore, we  agree  with  the
opinions and recommendation of  the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of  an  error  or  injustice.   In  the
absence of  persuasive  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  again  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  probable  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-2003-02068
in Executive Session on 2 Aug 07 and on 14 Dec 07, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Charlene Bradley, Chair
                 Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member
                       Mr. James W. Russell III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit I.  Record of Proceedings, dated 8 Mar 04,
                         with Exhibits A-H.
    Exhibit K.  Record of Proceedings, dated 29 Jun 04,
                         with Exhibit J.
      Exhibit M.  Second Addendum to Record of Proceedings,
            dated 22 Nov 04, w/atchs.
      Exhibit N.  DD Form 14, dated 22 Jun 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit O.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 18 Apr 07.
      Exhibit P.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 May 07, w/atch.




                                                   CHARLENE BRADLEY
                                                   Panel Chair-