RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00647
		INDEX CODE:  100.03
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her separation code be changed.  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Since she was discharged because of Depression and a Personality Disorder she should not have to pay back the enlistment bonus.  Her symptoms were something she could not control.  She had every intention of fulfilling her full term.  Since her discharge, it has been hard making ends meet.  She was scared and really didn’t know what was going on.  She had five different doctors telling her different things and was given different drugs such as Zoloft and Lithium.  People who worked with her in the engine shop at Eglin AFB can substantiate her performance as a hard worker.  She was ahead on all her tasks and never showed up to work late or had any record of misconduct before this incident.  

In support of her request, applicant provides a personal statement, correspondence with DFAS regarding her bonus recoupment, an excerpt from the DoD Financial Management Regulation, a copy of her DD Form 214, a copy of an AF Form 77, Supplemental Evaluation Sheet and a copy of her discharge case file.  

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 26 April 2000, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of 6 years as a guaranteed training enlistee for training in Air Force Specialty (AFS) 2A631 (Aerospace Propulsion Specialist).  In a supplement to the enlistment agreement signed by the applicant on the date of her enlistment, the applicant acknowledged that, upon completion of technical training and award of the 3-skill level in her guaranteed AFSC, she would be authorized payment of an initial enlistment bonus in the amount of $13,000.00 and that, should she voluntarily or involuntarily not complete the term of obligated service for which the bonus was paid, or should she not maintain qualification in the bonus AFSC, she would be required to repay the unearned portion of the bonus.  Following her successful completion of basic military and technical training, she was assigned to duties in AFSC 2A631 in October 2000.

On 12 February 2001, the applicant’s commander imposed non judicial punishment on the applicant, who was then serving in the grade of airman first class, for violation of Articles 92 and 134; dereliction in the performance of duties in that she willfully failed to refrain from drinking alcoholic beverages while under the age of twenty-one, and on or about 29 January 2001, wrongful possession of an official passport.  The punishment consisted of a reduction in grade to airman, effective and with a date of rank of 22 February 2001, and 30 days’ correctional custody suspended until 21 August 2001 at which time, unless sooner vacated, it would be remitted without further action.  Additionally, applicant acknowledged an understanding regarding the recoupment of education assistance, special pay, or bonuses whether she voluntarily or involuntarily separated before completing her period of active duty.  The foregoing proceedings were reviewed and found legally sufficient by the Assistant Staff Judge Advocate on 28 February 2001.

On 23 February 2001, the clinical psychologist endorsed by the staff psychiatrist advised the unit commander that the applicant had self-referred for evaluation twice at the Outpatient Mental Health Clinic and once in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment Program (ADAPT).  The clinical psychologist stated that the applicant was refusing to pursue treatment and based on this decision, her preference was to no longer serve in the Air Force and that the likelihood of her improving to become a productive member of the Air Force was small.  She was diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct.  Based on this evaluation, the recommendation to the commanding officer was for an administrative discharge.  

On 3 April 2001, in accordance with AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, Chapter 5, Section B, Involuntary ‑‑ Convenience of the Government, paragraph 5.11, Conditions that Interfere with Military Service, specifically, paragraph 5.11.1 Mental Disorders, the commander initiated discharge proceedings against the applicant.  The applicant was advised of her rights in this matter.  The applicant waived her right to counsel and to submit statements in her behalf.  On 10 April 2001, the discharge authority directed that the applicant be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Chapter 5, Section B, Involuntary ‑‑ Convenience of the Government, Paragraph 5.11, Conditions that Interfere with Military Service, specifically paragraph 5.11.1, Mental Disorders, with character of service as honorable.  The applicant was discharged on 12 April 2001 by reason of “Personality Disorder” with a Separation Code of “JFX” and a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “2C.”  She had served 11 months and 17 days on active duty. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied.  The BCMR Medical Consultant states that the applicant was administratively separated due to an adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct, and traits of a personality disorder.  Adjustment and personality disorders are lifelong patterns of maladaptive behavior based on the individual’s personality structure which are not medically disqualifying or unfitting but may render the individual unsuitable for further military service and may be cause for administrative action by the individual’s unit commander.  As such, members are held responsible for their conduct, and they do not receive disability discharges.  The applicant’s argument that she was not technically qualified for a medical reason is not valid since her adjustment disorder did not directly impair her from performance of her job.  The applicant was administratively discharged for the unsuiting condition, adjustment disorder.  For administrative purposes, adjustment disorder and personality disorders are both considered unsuiting conditions and treated the same.  There is no separation code for adjustment disorder and the personality disorder code is used.  The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted from a medical perspective.  

The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/JA recommends the application be denied.  JA states that Title 37 U.S.C. 308(d)(1) establishes criteria for recoupment of enlistment bonuses.  It states that recoupment is required when a member “voluntarily, or because of his misconduct, does not complete the term of enlistment for which a bonus was paid to him….”  The fundamental issues in any recoupment case is not whether or not the member was involuntarily discharged, but whether or not the behavior that served as basis for the discharge should be considered voluntary or within the member’s control.  The Department of Defense has determined what types of behavior should be considered voluntary for purposes of recouping bonuses paid to members who do not complete their terms of service.  Recoupment is required for administrative discharges.  Recoupment is not required when a member is medically discharged with a physical disability.  If a member is discharged for any kind of mental disorder (except in cases of physical disability), DFAS will recoup from the member any unearned bonuses he or she may have received.  The facts show that the Air Force properly discharged the applicant administratively, rather than through the Disability Evaluation System.  The applicant has produced no evidence to suggest otherwise.  DFAS’s decision to recoup the applicant’s enlistment bonus was based upon both a proper application of the law and the DoD Financial Management Regulation.  JA finds no error or injustice that warrants granting the applicant’s request.  

The AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit D.  

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  DPPRS states that the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  Based upon the documentation in file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/DPPAE reviewed the RE code of 2X “First-term airman not yet considered under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP)” is incorrect.  On 17 September 2002, AFPC/DPPRSP, advised the applicant of the RE Code error and forwarded a DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214, with a corrected RE code of 2C “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service.”  

The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 4 October 2002 for review and response 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; 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 in the matter of the applicant’s separation code.  We note that she is seeking a change to her separation code in order to be relieved of the requirement that she reimburse the government for the unearned portion of the Initial Enlistment Bonus she received.  The record reveals that at the time of her enlistment, she acknowledged that should she voluntarily or involuntarily not complete the term of obligated service for which the bonus was paid, or should she not maintain qualification in the bonus Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC), she would be required to repay the unearned portion of the bonus.  The separation code she received corresponds directly to the reason for her separation.  Other than her own assertions, the applicant has provided no evidence indicating the reason for her separation was erroneous or unjust.  Therefore, we agree with the assessments by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their conclusions as our findings in the case.  In the absence of evidence that the reason for her separation was erroneous, we have no basis to favorably consider the applicant’s request for a change to her separation code.

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in Executive Session on 6 February 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 February 2002, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, 20 May 2002.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 10 September 2002.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 17 June 2002.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, APFC/DPPAE, dated 21 August 2002.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 October 2002.