RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02726 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Her narrative reason for separation be changed. 2. Her reenlistment (RE) code of “2C” (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge, or entry-level separation without characterization of service) be changed to allow her to reenter military service. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She does not and never had a mental disorder or other condition that would prohibit her successful completion of rigorous and extensive physical/psychological training. She served successfully as a Law Enforcement Officer, both before and after her military service. A discharge for Mental Disorders is somewhat generic and does not apply to her situation. In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of her pre-employment and medical records. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 16 Dec 08, the applicant contracted her enlistment in the Regular Air Force. On 9 Jan 09, the applicant’s commander notified her that he was recommending her discharge from the Air Force for a condition that interfered with military service (mental disorders). The specific reason for the discharge action was on 31 Dec 08, the applicant was diagnosed by the Department of Mental Health as having a mental disorder. Her commander advised her of her rights in this matter. On 9 Jan 09, she acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and, after consulting with legal counsel, waived her right to submit a statement in her own behalf. She also acknowledged if discharged she was not entitled to any disability retirement, or severance pay. On 12 Jan 09, the legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support separation and recommended she be furnished and entry level separation. On 13 Jan 09, the discharge authority directed discharge with an entry level separation. On 14 Jan 09, the applicant was furnished an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service and was credited with 29 days of active service. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial noting the documentation in the applicant’s master personnel records indicates the discharge, to include the narrative reason for separation, was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. Although the applicant has provided documentation indicating she no longer shows symptoms consistent with her condition and is coping well in her civilian capacity, it does not change the basis for which she was discharged. The military environment is unique and the stressors encountered in this environment may not appear or surface when removed from the military environment. Airmen are given an entry-level separation when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service. The Department of Defense (DoD) determined if a service member served less than 180 days of continuous active service, it would be unfair to the service member or the service to characterize their limited service. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial noting the applicant has not provided any evidence to support a change her RE code. The applicant received the appropriate RE code based on her receiving an entry level separation with uncharacterized service. The complete copy of AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s Military Training Instructor during her time on active duty states the applicant displayed a high degree of integrity, responsibility, and ambition. She recalls the applicant’s symptoms came on very suddenly and the applicant was distraught with her condition. The applicant often stated to her and a team member that what she was feeling was not normal for her and she felt something was not right. The Training Instructor further states she has seen many trainees “fake” symptoms to be discharged, but the applicant seemed to be genuinely upset over her situation and did not comprehend why she was having the feelings she was having. The Training Instructor believes the applicant would be an asset to the Air Force and would make an outstanding airman. A complete copy of the Character Reference is at Exhibit F. The applicant states she understands and respects the recommendation from the Separations Branch that her request be denied due to the circumstances surrounding her discharge. She also understands this would be a valid conclusion based on the documentation in her records. However, she believes there were aspects of her discharge that are not documented in her records. First, it was stated several times that she was admitted to the hospital and treated for suicidal ideations. Before going to the hospital, she was repeatedly asked if she was a harm to herself or others. She repeatedly denied this because she did not have any suicidal inclinations and that would be a violation of her religious beliefs and a moral discredit to herself and family. Her treating physician asked her if she would like to return to her flight to complete training. At the time she felt being discharged would be in her best interest. While awaiting discharge she tried to return to her flight to complete her training, but was not allowed to even if it was another unit. Shortly, after returning to her home town, she was examined by Gynecologist and explained her symptoms to him, thinking it could be a physical problem and not a mental problem. Due to the physical changes that her body experienced in training, her symptoms could have been caused by Menorrhagia. She believes another occurrence can be avoided because she is aware of the signs and symptoms of her condition and knows how to remedy them without interfering with her training. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ 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. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission, including her response to the Air Force evaluations, in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. Based on the evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority. The applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the characterization of the service was improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, or the RE code and narrative reason issued in conjunction with her discharge were erroneous or inappropriately assigned. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2011-02726 in Executive Session on 1 Mar 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Jul 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 13 Oct 11. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 13 Oct 11. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Dec 11. Exhibit F. Letter, Character Reference, dated 14 Dec 11. Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Dec 11. Chair