RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05836 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His narrative reason for separation (Adjustment Disorder) be changed. 2. His reentry (RE) code of “2C” (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service) be changed to a code that would allow him to reenlist. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: When he entered basic military training (BMT) he was under stress due to family issues and not prepared for duty. He was seen by a psychiatrist at the Behavioral Analysis Services (BAS) and was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder. He indicated to the doctor that he previously had an anxiety attack due to a traumatic experience. He believes this diagnosis to be inaccurate. He thinks his discharge should be based on a failure to adapt to the military - rather than adjustment disorder with anxiety. He further states that he desires to serve his country and reenlist. In support of the applicant’s appeal he provides a copy of a certificate of compliance law enforcement officer from the state of Florida. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 October 2012. The applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208. The specific reason for this action was the applicant’s diagnosis of having a mental disorder. The 559th Medical Operations Squadron, Lackland AFB, determined this condition interfered with duty performance and conduct and was severe enough that his ability to function in the military was significantly impaired. The applicant was advised of his rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of the notification. He waived his right to consult with counsel and waived his right to submit a statement on his own behalf. The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed discharge. The applicant was discharged on 19 October 2012 with an uncharacterized, entry-level separation. He served 18 days on active duty. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AETC/SGPS recommends denial. SGPS states a review of the records provided and medical notes from Wilford Hall Medical Center (WHMC) reflect the applicant was seen in week one of training complaining of chest pain and anxiety. During his evaluation for anxiety he stated he could not handle the environment in basic training, he was not eating, hands were shaking, and poor sleep. He stated he was not motivated to remain in the military and expressed his desire to leave the military. By his third week of training and after several visits to the clinic, the mental health provider recommended separation and stated the applicant understood the diagnoses and post service treatment plan. Subsequently, he was processed for an entry level separation. It is noted that the applicant admitted to withholding negative information on his MEPS examination and during his mental health interviews while in basic training. His diagnosis was and still is disqualifying for military service. Based on the documentation on file in the applicant’s records, the separation was done in accordance with established policy and administrative procedures. The SGPS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. DPSOR states while the applicant was in medical hold for chest pain - he was referred to the BAS for the second time by medical for a mental health evaluation. The applicant complained of chest pain and increased anxiety. The applicant also stated his desire to leave the military due to increased anxiety and stress at home. The applicant does not feel his diagnoses were accurate; however, the applicant’s adjustment problems in BMT included; increasing feeling of anxiety and being “on edge” with symptoms of muscle tremors/shakes, shortness of breath, heart racing, blurred vision, tingling sensations in his fingers, dizziness, and fears of losing control (these episodes were occurring several times daily, with duration of episodes lasting 5 to 10 minutes). The applicant’s mental health evaluation stated the applicant needed medical attention for his anxiety spells several times during his first week of training. The report also stated the combination of the applicant’s mental health disorder and low motivation would likely cause problems with his adaptation to military life and could become a liability to the USAF, it was recommended the applicant be discharged. Airmen are given entry level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days continuous active service. The Department of Defense (DoD) 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. Therefore, the uncharacterized character of service on his DD Form 214 is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the narrative reason for separation and separation code was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. No evidence of an error or injustice was found in the processing of the applicant’s discharge. The DPSOR complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states the RE code 2C is required based on the entry level separation with uncharacterized character of service and the applicant does not provide any evidence of an error or injustice in reference to his RE code. The DPSOA complete evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 3 May 2013, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit F). 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 an error or injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence of record, it is our opinion that given the circumstances surrounding his separation from the Air Force, the narrative reason for separation and RE code assigned were proper and in compliance with the appropriate instructions. In addition, the applicant has not provided any evidence which would lead us to believe that a change in his record to allow him to reenlist is warranted. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. Therefore, we agree with 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. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ _ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an 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-2012-05836 in Executive Session on 24 October 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-05836 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 January 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 20 February 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 13 March 2013. Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 17 April 2013. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 May 2013. 2 3