RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00155
				INDEX CODE:  110.00
				COUNSEL:  NONE

				HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow him to reenlist in military service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time he enlisted in the military, he was unable to handle the pressure but now he feels he has all the tools to complete basic training and be a fine serviceman.

Applicant's complete submission, with an attachment, is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserves on 22 November 2002, as an airman basic (AB) for a period of six years and entered active duty on 25 February 2003 to attend Basic Military Training (BMT).

On 6 March 2003, the applicant underwent a Mental Health evaluation at XXXXX XXXXX Medical Center (XXMC).  The applicant reported he was experiencing increased irritability, frustration, incidents of head banging to release his frustration, difficulty breathing due to increased nervousness and tension, problems with sleep and concentration, intrusive memories and flashbacks of his past abuse as a child.  He also reported an incident of fleeting suicide ideation while in BMT.  The evaluation diagnosed the applicant with an Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbances of Emotions and Conduct.  The psychologist recommended the applicant be administratively separated.  His diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder did not meet the retention standards for continued military service.

On 7 March 2003, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend him for an entry level discharge for fraudulent entry for the following reason:

		The applicant failed to inform his recruiter of his history of suicide attempts.

The commander advised the applicant of his right to consult legal counsel, and if he so desired an appointment would be made upon request, and to submit statements in his own behalf.  He was advised that failure to consult with counsel or submit statements could constitute his waiver of his rights to do so.

On 7 March 2003, the applicant, after consulting with counsel, waived his right to submit a statement.

On 10 March 2003, a legal review was conducted in which the staff judge advocate (SJA) recommended the applicant be separated with an entry level separation.

The discharge authority approved the applicant be discharged with an entry level separation.

The applicant was separated with an uncharacterized entry-level separation on 13 March 2003 for fraudulent entry into the Air Force, in the grade of airman first class (A1C) and issued an RE code of “2C,” Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry-level separation without characterization of service.

Applicant does not contest the accuracy of the RE code and after reviewing the applicable instruction, AFI 36-2606, it appears the RE code is correct.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS states based upon the documentation in the applicant's records, they believe his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Also, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.

Air Force policy is that entry-level separations/uncharacterized service characterizations are given to servicemembers who have not completed more than 180 days of continuous active service.  The Department of Defense (DOD) determined if a servicemember served less than 180 days of active service, that it would be unfair to the member to characterize that service.  The applicant's uncharacterized service is correct and in accordance 
with DOD and AFIs.  The uncharacterized separation should not be viewed as negative and not be confused with other types of separations.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 20 February 2004, for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.  

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After careful consideration of the circumstances of this case and the evidence provided by the applicant, we are not persuaded that the discharge action and the resulting reenlistment code he received were in error or unjust.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Shortly after entering basic military training, the applicant underwent a Mental Health Evaluation and was diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbances of Emotions and Conduct.  The applicant’s diagnosis of an Adjustment Disorder did not meet the retention standards for continued military service.  Therefore, in view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we 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  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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-00155 in Executive Session on 23 March 2004 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 21 Jan 04, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 13 Feb 04.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Feb 04.

					Panel Chair