RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01579
		INDEX CODE:  100.03
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was related to mistakes he made over a woman, which he takes full responsibility.  He feels that his RE code is unjust because it is based on one time span of his enlistment, while 90 percent of his service time was served without any problems.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement, a copy of DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and a Letter of Appreciation.

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 19 July 2000 for a term of 6 years.  On 30 October 2001, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force due to minor disciplinary infractions.  The reason for this action was that on 22 September 2001, he was found sleeping on post.  On 26 September 2001, he was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he willfully failed to bury euthanized dogs when he was instructed to do so.  For this misconduct on 22 and 26 September 2001, he received an Article 15 with a suspended reduction to airman, a suspended forfeiture of $1,168 and restriction to the base for 6 days.  He failed a lawful order to clean around the building between 5 and 9 October 2001, and received a letter of reprimand.  On 20 October 2001, he failed to obey a lawful order by the commander by leaving the base during his restricted period.  On 22 October 2001, the member failed to obey a lawful order to return to duty.  For his actions on 20 and 22 October 2001, the suspended punishment from the previous Article 15 was imposed.  He was advised of his rights in this matter.  He acknowledged receipt of the notification, waived his right to consult counsel, and elected not to submit statements on his own behalf.  The package was reviewed by the staff judge advocate and found to be legally sufficient.  On 21 November 2001, he was administratively discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airman, (misconduct), with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. He was issued an RE code of 4H “Serving suspended punishment pursuant to Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)”.  He served one year, four months and two days total active service. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The applicant was discharged for misconduct with a general characterization of service.  His commander had two basis upon which to administratively discharge the applicant, misconduct and unsuitability due to adjustment disorder.  The commander acted within his discretion to choose the basis, which was the predominant reason for discharge and to characterize his service as general due to the misconduct.

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 applicant attributes his difficulties performing his duties to a romantic relationship, a circumstance that most airmen successfully handle without duty impairment, misconduct, or emotional responses leading to psychiatric hospitalization.  In retrospect, the symptoms reported in the 14 June 2001 medical record entry suggest the applicant was experiencing symptoms of adjustment disorder at that time.  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 social support system of family and friends.  His past experience is predictive of an increased risk for recurrence of debilitating anxiety and adjustment disorder if re-exposed to the rigors of military training and service.

Action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.  

The Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge process.  Additionally, he provided no facts warranting a change in his discharge.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial.  The RE code of 4H, “Serving suspended punishment pursuant to Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)”, is correct.  At the time of the 21 November 2001 discharge, applicant was serving punishment pursuant to a 22 October 2001 Article 15.  Member has not provided any documentation that supports changing his RE code.  Waivers of RE codes for enlistment are considered and approved based on the needs of the respective military service and recruiting initiatives at the time of the enlistment inquiry.

The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit E.   

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 21 Nov 03, for review and comment 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 an error or injustice in regard to his request that his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed.  Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the BCMR Medical Consultant and the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Applicant has not provided any evidence, which would lead the Board to believe otherwise.  Therefore, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2003-01579 in Executive Session on 6 January 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 28 Apr 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 4 Sep 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 Oct 03.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 14 Nov 03.
	Exhibit F.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Nov 03.

	Panel Chair