RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00635

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His uncharacterized service be changed to an honorable discharge.

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 the military he was 18 and not emotionally stable.  While he was in high school his brother was in involved with the murder of his grandmother and he never had time to mourn or cope with that situation prior to entering the service.  He was placed in Security Forces and was not suited for that type of duty.   He has been gainfully employed for over four years, he states he is now emotionally stable, and would like to serve his country.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 1 October 2008.

On 28 January 2009 the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 and AFPD 36-32.  The specific reason was the applicant’s diagnosis of an Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood, resolving.  Because of this diagnosis, he did not meet retention standards and his ability to function in a military environment was significantly impaired.  His diagnosis also disqualified him for the personnel reliability program (PRP), security clearance, and weapons handling, which did not allow him to continue further training in security forces.  It also disqualified him from retention in the Air Force.  The applicant was advised of his rights in this matter and waived his right to consult with counsel he elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf.

On 2 February 2009 the assistant staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended separation.  

On 4 February 2009 the discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed the applicant be discharged.

On 6 February 2009, the applicant was furnished an entry level separation under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Adjustment Disorder), a Reentry Code of 2C, and was credited with 4 months, and 6 days of active service.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs), which are attached at Exhibits C through E.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.

Since the applicant was only on active duty for 119 days at the time the discharge action was initiated, he must be given an entry level separation/uncharacterized discharge.  The base legal office reviewed the discharge and found it legally sufficient to support separation.  The discharge authority approved the separation and directed the applicant be given an entry level separation/uncharacterized discharge.

A medical report stated that the applicant was admitted to the inpatient mental health beginning 5 January 2009 for suicidal ideation and diagnosed with an adjustment disorder.  He reported his mood had improved and was looking forward to going home.  The report concluded that the applicant’s diagnosis did not meet retention standards for continued military service and that administrative separation was highly recommended.  As a result, discharge action was initiated.

The SPD code and narrative reason for separation are correct as indicated on the DD Form 214.  The base discharge authority approved separation for a condition that interferes with military service (Mental Disorders-Adjustment Disorder).  The character of service is also correct as indicated on the applicant’s DD Form 214.  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. 

The applicant has not filed a timely petition.  It has been six years since the applicant’s discharge and he did not provide a valid reason for not filing within three years of discharge.  Furthermore, based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge 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 in the processing of the applicant’s discharge was found.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice warranting a change to the applicants RE code.

The applicant does not provide any evidence of an error or injustice in reference to his RE code.  The RE code 2C is the applicant’s correct RE code based on his entry level separation with uncharacterized character of service. 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AETC/SG recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.

The applicant was hospitalized for five days starting on 5 January 2009 for suicidal ideations and diagnosed with adjustment disorder.  Due to his diagnosis the member was deemed unfit for military duty.  He stated he understood the diagnosis and treatment plan.  Subsequently, he was processed for an entry level separation.  Based on the documentation in the file provided for review, the discharge to include the type of separation, SPD code, narrative reason for separation and character of service were appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not provide any evidence that an error or injustice occurred in the processing of his discharge.

A complete copy of the AETC/SG evaluation is at Exhibit E.

The AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.

The applicant required hospitalization during his short service time.  This consultant will not argue that the transition into the military is stressful, especially if Military Occupational Assignment (MOS) is undesirable; nevertheless, it should not result in the psychiatric admission and suicidal ideations of the healthy individual.  The applicant admits that he had a very traumatic experience two years prior to enlistment, when his brother, who might suffer from schizophrenia, was implicated in the death of his grandmother.  Since applicant decompensated within the first four months of his service, this consultant opines that he had entered the service with a very fragile state of mind, he had a very poor distress tolerance and a genetic predisposition to the development of the psychiatric illness.  The applicant was diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder by a military psychiatrist.  By Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV/V Adjustment Disorder is characterized by “Marked distress that is out of proportion to the severity or intensity of the stressor”.  The key phrase is “OUT OF PROPORTION”.  There is no argument that when bad/demanding/stressful things happen people get upset, it is a normal reaction, but it would not be diagnosed as an Adjustment Disorder.  This diagnosis is only applied when the response to stress is “OUT of PROPORTION” to what normally would be expected in that particular situation.  Adjustment Disorder is temporary condition and resolves with the removal of the offending agent. This consultant presumes from the applicant’s desire to re-enlist that he is doing well, but all it means is that OUTSIDE of the military (without its demands and stressors) the applicant manages well.  The Board members already have been presented with the evidence that the applicant did not function well at the time of routine military stress and returning him to the military possesses uncertain risks of recurrence of mental health illness when he is confronted with stressors beyond his span of control; particularly under operational conditions confronted by all Military Departments, regardless of Service component or career field. 

The applicant’s request to change his uncharacterized service characterization was already comprehensively addressed in the AFPC/DPSOR Advisory.  The applicant was given ELS/uncharacterized service characterization because his separation was initiated in the first 180 days of 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.

The Consultant appreciates the applicant’s desire to serve his country, and hopes that he can find other avenues of accomplishing it, however, the decisions of the Military Department did not represent an error or injustice.

A complete copy of the AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor’s evaluation is at Exhibit F.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 29 December 2015 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit G).  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 applicant was not timely filed.  While the applicant claims a date of discovery of less than three years ago, in our view, the reasonable date of discovery of the alleged error or injustice was more than three years ago and the application is therefore untimely; however, it is in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file.

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 OPR’s and adopt their rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has been the victim of an error or injustice.  We find no fault with the discharge process and the commander’s decision to discharge the applicant.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

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-2015-00635 in Executive Session on 9 June 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00635 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 February 2015, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 22 July 2016.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 18 August 2016.
	Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AETC/SGPS, dated 9 September 2015. 
	Exhibit F.  Memorandum, AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor,
  dated 10 May 2016.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 December 2015.