RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-02495 INDEX CODE:	110.02
COUNSEL:	NONE HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her separation authority, separation code, re-enlistment eligibility (RE) code, and narrative reason for discharge be changed.

Examiner’s Note: The narrative reason, separation code, and separation authority have been administratively corrected. The remaining issue is the request to have her RE code changed from 2C (involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry-level separation without characterization of service) to allow her to return to the Air Force.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
During basic training and for the duration of her technical training, she had suffered from a knee injury. She also had a back injury which she reported in technical training. Since her discharge she had an MRI that discovered her injury during technical training was misdiagnosed as being a cyst. The MRI revealed findings of scattered foci of thoracic Schmorl’s node formation.

She was placed on a profile and mitigating circumstances regarding individuals in her chain of command made it impossible for her to adapt and function in a military lifestyle, as she was demeaned on a daily basis.

She sought the counsel of a chaplain and later requested to see a psychologist due to depression and anxiety. Before she entered the military, she had never been depressed or sought the counsel of a psychologist.

Because she could not go to her command for help, she made a bad judgment call which resulted in her discharge.		If she had not been belittled and harassed she would still be in the Air Force. The	harassment	was	reported	but	nothing	was	done	creating	an undeniable injustice.

She was an excellent airman that obeyed all the rules but did not have the appropriate leadership. Since her discharge, she has been rated twenty (20) percent disabled by the Department of

Veterans Affairs (DVA). However, she desires to reenter the Air Force.

In support of her request, the applicant provided statements in her own behalf, a copy of her DVA disability rating entitlement, MRI report, selected DVA and military medical records, a copy of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, a copy of her basic training certificate, correspondence to and from her congressional representative, and a copy of her medical discharge summary.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 25 Oct 05. On
9 Mar 06, she was notified by her commander of pending discharge action. The commander cited her diagnosis on 23 Feb 06, by a psychiatrist as having an Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood as the basis for discharge. On 17 Mar 06, the discharge authority directed her discharge. She was discharged on 22 Mar 06, originally, with a separation code of JFX and a narrative reason of Personality Disorder. However, on 9 Apr 07, AFPC/DPPRY changed her separation code to JFF and the narrative reason to Secretarial Authority.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states the applicant was seen by a qualified psychiatrist and diagnosed based upon her evaluation at the time. However, they defer to any further evaluation by appropriate military medical authorities as to the appropriateness or validity of the mental health evaluation.

The complete HQ AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
She states she never had an Adjustment Disorder, Mixed Anxiety or Depressed Mood before joining the Air Force. She admits she asked to be seen by a clinical psychologist but was seen by a military psychiatrist. The military psychiatrist did not feel she was clinically depressed at that time but recommended a separation due to her inability to adjust to military life. Since her psychiatrist did not feel she was clinically depressed and her commander denied her separation due to her inability to adjust to military life, then it would stand to reason that she

was not clinically depressed nor did she have an inability to adjust to military life.

She admitted she had a depressed mood due to her right knee injury and for being pulled from technical training. She did not want out of the military; she just wanted the harassment to stop. She felt the only way to make it stop was to say she wanted out of the military.

In an effort to further show that she was processed unfairly, an administrative separation for unsuitability was processed within two days. Not only did she not have the proper guidance but she did not have a sufficient amount of time to be counseled before she was recommended for discharge. She was not a burden to her command and after she was pulled from technical training she went above and beyond.

The applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

BCMR MEDICAL CONSULTANT’S EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. He states that although it is possible the applicant’s medical problems have changed for the better since her 2007 report, absent evidence of total resolution of her knee and/or back ailments, these potentially disqualifying medical conditions are likely to again restrict her utilization as a total force asset.

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit F.

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO BCMR MEDICAL CONSULTANT’S EVALUATION:
A copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 23 Sep 08 for a review and response within 30 days (Exhibit G).  As of this date, this office has not received a response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1.	The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.	The application was timely filed.
1.	
3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, 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 Docket Number BC- 2008-02495 in Executive Session on 9 December 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair 
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 17 Jun 08, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 4 Aug 08. Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Aug 08.
Exhibit E.	Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 8 Sep 08, w/atchs. Exhibit F.	Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated
22 Sep 08.
Exhibit G.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Sep 08.