RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02226 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reentry (RE) Code “2C” which denotes “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” be changed to allow reenlistment in the Air National Guard (ANG). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time he was in the process of getting married and having a child. This does not constitute an excuse for his behavior and he hopes that his achievements in Basic Military Training (BMT) and his post-service activities reflect his true character. He worked as a network security engineer in Pennsylvania and has also worked as a network administrator for a defense contractor. He is now a network systems engineer at Penn State University. He completed his bachelor’s degree with a Grade Point Average (GPA) of 3.65 and raised three children. He is active in the American Legion, Masonic lodge and volunteers with the fire department. He hopes his post-service success shows he no longer has an “adjustment disorder.” A recruiter stated his RE code of “2C” had to change in order to reenlist in the ANG. He asks the Board to give him an opportunity to correct the mistake he made in 2009. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 9 June 2009, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 3 September 2009, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force with an Entry-Level Separation (ELS) In Accordance With (IAW) AFI 36- 3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, chapter 5. The specific reason for this action was that on or about 25 August 2009, the applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with depressed mood. The disorder was so severe that his ability to function in the military environment was significantly impaired. The applicant indicated thoughts of suicide and that he did not trust himself in his present state. In a letter dated 8 September 2009, the Training Wing Chief of Nonjudicial Punishment (TRW/JAJ) found the discharge recommendation legally sufficient. In a letter dated 17 September 2009, the discharge authority approved the discharge recommendation without probation and rehabilitation. On 23 September 2009, the applicant was discharged with an ELS and uncharacterized service. He received a RE code of “2C” with a narrative reason for separation of “Adjustment Disorder.” He served 3 months and 15 days on active duty. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. The RE code “2C” is required based on the ELS with uncharacterized service. The applicant does not provide any evidence of an error or injustice in reference to his RE code. If a competent military medical authority supports the applicant reentering the military, a waiver of the RE code “2C” for entry would be appropriate. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9 September 2014 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Clinical Mental Health Advisor recommends denial. The Board may decide to consider the applicant’s post-military education and work record as justification for granting the applicant’s request as a matter of clemency. On 20 August 2009, he presented to the Mental Health clinic with complaints of low motivation, low energy, depressed mood and irritability. He was scheduled for and seen in follow up treatment sessions but continued to endorse escalation of his symptoms to include passive suicidal ideation, all the while attributing his distress directly to the military environment. Ultimately, he was recommended for, and received an ELS secondary to severe adjustment disorder with depressed mood. The applicant received appropriate and expeditious treatment for his depressive symptoms. The diagnosis of adjustment disorder was appropriate, as the applicant himself focused the blame for his distress on the military environment. Given the escalation of his symptoms, despite appropriate medical care, the Air Force was given no alternative other than to offer him an ELS. The Clinical Mental Health Advisor finds no error or injustice with regards to his mental health care. A complete copy of the BCMR Clinical Mental Health Advisor’s evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He agrees with the comments that there were no errors or injustice with the care he received. He would like to address the recommendation that the Board may consider his post-military education and work record. He has provided information regarding his education and work record. He has not stood back waiting to see if the Board will change his RE code. On multiple occasions he tried to reenlist. A family hardship was the problem not the military environment. If given the opportunity to reenlist, he would not hesitate and would strive to be the best airman. The applicant’s complete submission 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 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 in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of AFPC/DPSOA and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. We note the applicant is requesting his RE code be changed based on clemency. However, the circumstances in this case do not warrant relief on that basis. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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-2014-02226 in Executive Session on 29 October 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 May 2014, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 25 June 2014. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 September 2014. Exhibit E. Memorandum, BCMR Mental Health Advisor, dated 15 September 2015. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 September 2015. Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 25 September 2015.