RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01172
		INDEX CODE:  112.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her narrative reason for separation and reenlistment eligibility (RE) codes be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The JFX SPD code was assigned to her in error.  She has never been diagnosed with a personality disorder.

In support of the appeal, applicants submits a copy of her DD Form 214 and a letter from a licensed psychologist.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 3 September 2002.

On 30 January 2003, the commander notified the applicant that he was recommending a discharge for conditions that interfere with military service, mental disorders.  The reason for this action is the Behavioral Analysis Service letter, dated 23 January 2003, indicating that he was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct.

The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman basic, was separated from the Air Force on 14 February 2003 under the provisions of AFI-36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen (personality disorder) with an uncharacterized entry-level separation.  She served a total of 5 months and 12 days active duty.  She was assigned a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service.”  

On 19 August 2003, AFPC/DPPRSP informed the applicant that there was an error on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and another DD Form 214 has been completed crediting her with her previously-omitted active duty time served and changing the reason for her separation and her separation code to “Secretarial Authority” and “JFF.”  Her previously issued separation document has been voided from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant states that the applicant developed symptoms of depressed mood while in technical training that was diagnosed as Adjustment Disorder and was administratively discharged for this unsuiting condition with an entry-level separation.  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 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 the applicant is functioning well at this time confirms her diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder, however, it does not predict that she will respond well to the stresses of military operations, deployment, or combat when she is separated from her familiar surroundings and usual support system of family and friends.  Her past experience is predictive of a significantly increased risk for recurrence of debilitating anxiety and Adjustment Disorder if re-exposed to the rigors of military training and service.

On the applicant’s DD 214, the narrative reason for discharge is listed as personality disorder even though the applicant was not diagnosed with a personality disorder or maladaptive personality traits.  The DOD uses the term personality disorder administratively to include all unsuiting character and behavior disorders including Adjustment Disorder, Personality Disorders, and Impulse Control Disorders.  This term is confusing because the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders uses the term personality disorder in a specific, defined manner to classify specific disorders of personality that do not include Adjustment Disorder or Impulse Control Disorder.  Prior regulations used the more inclusive and less confusing character and behavior disorder.

Since the applicant was not diagnosed with a personality disorder and was further not noted to demonstrate maladaptive traits or misconduct suggestive of a personality disorder, it is inaccurate to list the narrative reason as personality disorder, even though administratively it is correct.

The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that the narrative reason for discharge should be changed to Secretarial Authority, but no change in the reenlistment code is warranted.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.

Airmen are given entry-level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service.  The Department of Defense determined if an applicant served less than 180 days continuous active service, it would be unfair to the applicant and the service to characterize their limited service. 

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPAE states that the Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge, or entry level separation without characterization of service” is correct.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 21 November 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice with respect to her request for a change to her RE code.  Notwithstanding the action taken by the Air Force to administratively change the reason for the applicant’s separation, her RE code remains correct.  Furthermore, we do not find her RE code is unjust.  The record clearly shows that the applicant experienced significant difficulties after completing basic military training and while in technical training.  Even though, from a medical standpoint, she does not have a personality disorder, we are not persuaded by the evidence provided that, should she reenter the service, she would be able to successfully function in the highly-structured military environment.  In this regard, we agree with the BCMR Medical Consultant’s assessment of this matter.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request for a change to her RE code is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application, BC-2003-01172, in Executive Session on 25 February 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				Panel Chair
				Member
				Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 18 Feb 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 18 Jul 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 20 Aug 03.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 28 Oct 03.
	Exhibit F.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Nov 03.

					
					Panel Chair