RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2015-02081

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, Block 27, Reentry (RE) code, be corrected to reflect “3B” – (First Term, Second Term or Career Airman who was ineligible to reenlist, the ineligibility no longer exists and the Airman requires SRP consideration or reconsideration - Do not separate Airmen with this RE code), rather than “2C” – (Involuntarily separated with an Honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service).

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His RE code of “2C” was received due to a mental health discharge – a condition deemed ineligible for reenlistment.  He believes this condition no longer exists and he should be eligible to reenlist in the Air Force.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 1 Nov 11, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.

On 26 Apr 12, the Mental Health Advisor, 55 MDOS/SGOW, notified the applicant’s commander that the applicant was diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Depression under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

On 27 Apr 12, the applicant was notified by his commander via a Notification Memorandum, that he intended to discharge him in accordance with AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen.  The specific reason was the applicant was diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Depression.  He received mental health treatment in the base clinic and was psychiatrically hospitalized from 20-23 Apr 12 for suicidal ideation.  He had a gradual increase in depression symptoms since starting basic training and the pace of his mental health declined.  His symptoms of anxiety and depression would have likely persisted if he was retained in the military.  Due to the severity of his symptoms, his ability to function effectively in the military environment was significantly impaired.  His diagnoses were not medically disqualifying; however, they were of a severity that would have continued to cause behavioral problems.  

On 27 Apr 12, the applicant was advised of his rights to consult with counsel and to submit statements on his behalf.

On 4 May 12, the applicant confirmed he had consulted with legal counsel and submitted a statement on his behalf for consideration.  

On 4 May 12, the Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case in its entirety and found it legally sufficient.  The discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged for Entry Level Performance - Failure to Adapt to the Military Environment.  

On 15 May 12, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with 6 months and 15 days of active service.

The applicant’s DD Form 214, Block 27, reflects a RE code of “2C.”

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D and G.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

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

While the applicant claims he no longer has any mental health or similar issues, there is no way of knowing if the unique stressors of the military environment will have a negative effect on the applicant.  The applicant does not provide any evidence of an error or injustice in reference to his current RE code; but is asking for it to be changed to “3B.” The “3B” RE code does not apply to the applicant, as he is not serving on Active Duty, nor does he have enough time for Selective Reenlistment Program considerations.  

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

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

A thorough review of the applicant’s records revealed he was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Depression under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.  The applicant received mental health treatment at the base clinic and was psychiatrically hospitalized for 3 days as a result of suicidal ideations.

The SPD code and narrative reason for separation are correct as indicated on the DD Form 214.

The character of service is also correct as indicated.  Airmen are given entry level separation with uncharacterized service when the discharge is initiated within 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 discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive guidelines of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR-SEP evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant refutes virtually every point made by the OPR and argues that he does not have a mental condition and wishes to rejoin the Air Force.  In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of a case that is very similar to his “Case 01-03208 Index #100.  In his summation, the applicant concedes that every application is evaluated on its own merits, however, he thought it was noteworthy to note some of the case similarities. 

A complete copy of the Applicant’s rebuttal is at Exhibit F.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

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

The duty performance of the applicant was impressive.  It is clear that he was very determined and dedicated to duty and the Air Force.  However, what is also clear is that the applicant began having problems early on in his training because when he consulted with mental health on 11 Apr 2012 he was already reporting that he was having suicidal thoughts for the last three weeks.  He did not have a plan but was thinking of how it might feel to not be there.  At this point his testing showed his stress level as severe.  He was seen almost daily after that.

According to DoD Directive 6130.03 Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment or Induction in the Military Services, 28 April 2010” item m., “Current or history of any condition that, in the opinion of a medical officer, shall significantly interfere with the successful performance of a military duty or training” is disqualifying.  This includes anxiety disorders or acute reactions to stress.  The medical director who evaluated the applicant prior to hospitalization and after hospitalization felt that he was significantly impaired and that he could not be maintained in the military at that time.  The DOD Directive also says that the applicant did not require any period of time in an inpatient or residential facility.  At this point, it is clear that the applicant does not meet this criteria of eligibility to be reenlisted in the military.

This psychiatric advisor is pleased to know that applicant has recovered and doing well, but all it means is that outside of the military (without its demands and stressors) the applicant manages well.  There is evidence that the applicant did not function well at the time of routine military stress and/or relationship issues 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 Psychiatric Consultant appreciates the applicant’s desire to serve his country and feels that he should continue his studies and find some other avenue to accomplish the same goal.  There is no evidence of an error injustice in the decision of the military.

A complete copy of the Psychiatric Advisor evaluation is at Exhibit G.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 26 July 2016 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit H).  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 warranting a change to the applicant’s RE Code.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record, to include the applicant’s rebuttal, it is our opinion that given the circumstances surrounding his separation from the Air Force, the RE code assigned was 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 to his RE code to allow him to reenlist is warranted.  The applicant asserts, in essence, that relief is warranted based on precedence and cites an AFBCMR case he believes supports his request.  However, we disagree.  Every case before this Board is considered on its own merit since the circumstance of the case is seldom identical.  After a careful review of AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2001-03208 we find that the applicant’s discharge was in error.  She received an entry level separation under AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.22.2.2 (Failure to Adapt to the Military Environment) with an RE code of 2K; narrative reason for separation (Entry Level Performance and Conduct) with a corresponding SPD code of JGA.  However, according to the OPRs of the case – the applicant should have been discharged under AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.11.1 (Mental Disorders) – unlike the case under review.  Therefore, the applicant’s RE code was corrected to reflect 3K (Secretarial Authority) with a narrative reason for separation (Secretarial Authority) and a corresponding SPD code of JFF.  No evidence of an error or injustice occurred in the discharge processing of the case under review.  In view of the above, we agree with the Air Force OPRs 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 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-2015-02081 in Executive Session on 11 Aug 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-02081 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 May 2015, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 26 June 2015.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 29 July 2015.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 July 2015.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, not dated, w/atchs.
	Exhibit G.  Memorandum, AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor,
  dated 14 July 2016.
	Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 July 2016.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board’s review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board’s proceedings in the above entitled matter.