RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03047
								INDEX CODE:  110.02
								COUNSEL:  NONE

								HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed from 2C to 1A, and her reason for discharge be changed from “Personality Disorder” to failure to adapt.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

A personality disorder is a mental health classification for disorders such as Bipolar Disorder and Schizophrenia, neither of which can be used to describe her mental standing at the time of her separation.  She was homesick and unable to see all the positive things the Air Force had to offer, and therefore was unable to adapt to military life.  But she now knows what to expect.  She should have finished school at the advice of her First Sergeant and military training leaders.  When she returned home after her discharge, she again realized her main reason for joining the Air Force, which was to do something with her life that both she and her family could be proud of.  She has disappointed her family, and let herself down by not striving to reach her full potential.  She would greatly appreciate another opportunity to prove that she is competent, capable, and deserves to be an airman in the United States Air Force.

The applicant’s submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 16 October 2002, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 18 in the grade of airman basic for a period of six years.  The applicant completed basic military training and began technical training in the Health Services Management Apprentice Course, but was disenrolled on 31 January 2003.

The applicant voluntarily visited and was seen by a staff psychiatrist in the Mental Health Life Skills Support Center on 22 and 28 January, and on 29 January 2003, she was diagnosed as having a mental disorder as contained in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV).

The DSM-IV Diagnosis was:

Axis I:	309.9 Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood

A psychological resident recommended the applicant be discharged from the Air Force based on the above diagnosis.  The examiner assessed the presence of a severe adjustment order, that significantly impaired the member’s ability to function in a military environment, and strongly recommended the member’s administrative separation from the military.

On 24 February 2003, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant that he was recommending she be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208 because of a mental health diagnosis that significantly impaired her ability to function in the military.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and waived her rights to consult counsel and submit statements in her own behalf.

In a legal review of the discharge case file dated 25 February 2003, the deputy staff judge advocate found the file was legally sufficient and recommended that the applicant be separated from the service with an entry level separation.  The discharge authority approved the recommended separation on 3 March 2003, and directed that the applicant be separated with an entry level separation for the reasons recommended by her commander, without the offer of probation and rehabilitation.

On 4 March 2003, the applicant was given an uncharacterized discharge because of a personality disorder, with an RE code of 2C and a separation code of JFF.  RE code 2C is applied in those cases where the member is involuntarily separated with an uncharacterized discharge.  The separation code is directly related to the reason and authority for her separation.  She had served 4 months and 19 days on active duty.

Pursuant to the submission of this application and the opinion of the BCMR Medical Consultant, on 9 February 2004, authorities at the Air Force Personnel Center administratively corrected the applicant’s record to show the reason for her separation was “Secretarial Authority.”

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the reenlistment code is warranted.  The fact that the applicant is functioning well at this time at home 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 an increased risk for recurrence of debilitating anxiety, maladaptive behaviors and Adjustment Disorder if re-exposed to the rigors of military training and service.  A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states that based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, and the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  Additionally, the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, and she provided no facts warranting a change to her reenlistment eligibility code.  Airmen are given an entry level separation/ uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated within the first 180 days of continuous active service.  The Department of Defense determined if a member served less than 180 days continuous active service, it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited service.  An entry level/uncharacterized separation should not be viewed as negative and should not be confused with other types of separation.  A complete copy of the HQ AFPC/DPPRS advisory opinion is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit E).
________________________________________________________________

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.  Evidence has not been provided that would lead us to believe the applicant’s RE code is erroneous or unjust.  We took notice of the action taken to change the reason for discharge to one that more accurately reflects the circumstances surrounding her separation.  Notwithstanding this change, we are not inclined to favorably consider her request to correct her RE code that could facilitate her reentry into the service.  The record clearly shows that shortly after her entry into technical training, the applicant began to experience problems associated with stress.  Based on the evidence in the record, we believe her separation was appropriate at that time.  She has provided no evidence that would lead us to conclude that she now would be able to successfully function in the highly structured military environment.  Therefore, we agree with the assessment by the BCMR Medical Consultant in this case and find no basis to conclude the applicant’s RE code is erroneous or unjust.  Accordingly, her request 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 in Executive Session on 11 May 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-03047.

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Sep 03.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Med Consultant, dated 20 Jan 04.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 13 Feb 04.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Feb 04.