RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02649 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility code of 2C (involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service) be changed to allow him to enter the Air Force. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He believes the recommendation of the second “shrink” concerning his future in the Air Force was totally wrong and some of the things in his personal information file (PIF) were blown out of proportion. He believes the time he spent in the Texas Army National Guard made him a better person. He deserves a second chance in the Air Force. He has learned what it means to be a soldier in the U.S. Army and desires to learn what it means to be an airman in the Air Force. In support of his request, the applicant provides an honorable discharge certificate, a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, from the Army National Guard and a copy of his NGB Form 22, Department of the Army and the Air Force, National Guard Bureau, Report of Separation and Record of Service. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant entered the active duty Air Force on 9 Dec 93. He served for a period of 1 year, 8 months, and 23 days. On 6 Jul 95, the applicant was notified of pending discharge actions. Specifically, on 15 Jun 95, medical personnel diagnosed the applicant as having a personality disorder that severely impaired his ability to function effectively in the military environment. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification, consulted counsel, and waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf on 7 Jul 95. The staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and on 17 Jul 95, the discharge authority directed that the applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation. The applicant was honorably discharged on 1 Sep 95 with a narrative reason of personality disorder. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request. DPSOA states that there was no evidence of error or injustice; nor did the applicant submit any. The RE code for such a separation is 2C. The complete AFPC/DPSOA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 19 Oct 07 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has not received a response. ________________________________________________________________ _ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The applicant was given a diagnosis of personality disorder from a competent medical authority. Persons given such clinical diagnosis commonly display a maladaptive pattern of behavior when confronted with external stressors, whether occupational or interpersonal, or when subjected to adherence to a strict set of rules, as common to military service. Therefore, commanders are challenged with removing from military service personnel who present with patterns of behavior determined to be so severe that it poses an unreasonable health and mission safety risk. It is laudable, however, that the applicant has served a period of service with the Army National Guard. However, in the context of the nation’s current wartime footing and the extreme mental stressors confronting today’s Air and Space Expeditionary Force, changing the applicant’s RE code to allow his reentry into the Air Force is not in the best interest of the Air Force. The BCMR Medical Consultant finds the aforementioned factors particularly important should the applicant experience a recurrent exacerbation of his disorder under austere operational conditions, at the risk of placing his unit’s mission in peril. Therefore, the previous action and disposition of the applicant’s case has been found to be proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant stated he did not know or realize until reading the first correspondence that the Air Force uses spies and babysitters (KPR) for people who are just getting into the military. He stated he now realizes that he really did not have true friends in the Air Force but he had true friends in the Army. He stated he signed up for six years to get his education benefits and that he has seen first-hand what a deployment can do to a person’s college educational pursuits. In his conclusion, he stated, “it seems to me that if the Army can trust kids younger then [sic] 20 to go over to Iraq and to other active combat areas, give them access to all sorts of weapons and explosives, make them live through some pretty horrible events in their young lives, hope that he or she will do their jobs properly and sometimes die in the process, that the Air Force can do the same with people trying to make up mistakes he or she made in the past.” His final comment was, “At this point, I don’t expect you and the shrinks to change my code but I know I have a home in the Army National Guard.” The applicant’s complete response 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 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 office of primary responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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 that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 Docket BC-2007- 02649 in Executive Session on 7 February 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 25 Jul 07. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA Memorandum, w/atchs, dated 9 Oct 07. Exhibit D. SAF/MRBR Letter, w/atchs, dated 19 Oct 07. Exhibit E. BCMR Medical Consultant Memorandum, dated 17 Dec 07. Exhibit F. SAF/MRBR Letter, w/atch, dated 17 Dec 07. Exhibit G. Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 25 Jan 08.