RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03879 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2C (Involuntary separation with Honorable discharge; or entry-level separation without characterization of service) be changed to allow his reentry in the military in another career field. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He is unable to complete the requirements of a security forces member due to his anxiety of carrying a lethal weapon. However, this does not affect his ability to perform other duties and or tasks of other career fields. The Air Force made a significant investment in him and should be allowed to return that investment by retraining in another career field that does not require the use of weapons The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, on 14 May 13, he enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 11 Jun 14, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend his discharge from the Air Force for Mental Disorders: Adjustment Disorder. The specific reason for the action was the applicant was diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder that significantly impaired his ability to function effectively in the military environment. On 11 Jun 14, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and on 17 Jun 14, he consulted with legal counsel, and submitted a statement in his behalf. On 26 Jun 14, the discharge authority directed the applicant be honorably discharged for Mental Disorder: Adjustment Disorder. On 14 Jul 14, the applicant received an honorable discharge with a narrative reason for separation of “Adjustment Disorder,” and a RE code of “2C.” He was credited with one year, two months, and one day of total active service. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial, indicating the applicant has not provided any proof of an error or injustice in reference to his RE code. The RE code 2C is required based on his involuntary separation with an honorable character of service. The applicant contends that he wanted to retrain to another job other than security forces instead of being discharge. However, the Mental Health Flight Commander stated the applicant would not be able to effectively handle weapons, regardless of his job or duties. 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 12 Jan 15 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 Consultant recommends denial indicating the applicant has submitted no documentation to support his claim of an error or injustice in his proceedings. Furthermore, the severity of the applicant’s reaction to what he claimed was a stressful situation is an indicator that he may have a similar response to similar or yet unknown stressors found within the military environment. On 2 May 14, the applicant underwent a command-directed mental health evaluation. The reason was the applicant’s reported anxiety toward bearing arms, with resultant psychiatric hospitalization for suicidal ideations, was impeding his ability to perform his duties in the security forces career field. The Clinical Neuropsychologist found the applicant met criteria for an adjustment disorder and opined this disorder was of a severity that significantly impaired the applicant’s ability to function effectively in the military environment. As a result, the discharge action, medical evaluation and subsequent administrative actions/recommendations were all found legally sufficient. The applicant has submitted no evidence to suggest the findings of the evaluating mental health practitioner or the actions of the discharge authority were unjust or in error. The administrative separation of the applicant was in the best interest of both the United States Air Force, as well as that of the applicant. A complete copy of the BCMR Clinical Mental Health Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the additional evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 4 Jan 16 for review and comment 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. 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 offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. 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-2014-03879 in Executive Session on 11 Feb 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03879 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Sep 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 17 Nov 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Jan 15. Exhibit E. Memorandum, AFBCMR Clinical Mental Health Consultant, dated 30 Dec 15.