RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02353 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Reentry (RE) code of “2C” (Approved Honorable Involuntary Separation or Entry Level Separation) be changed to an RE code “1”. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She believes the record is unjust because she was being seen for insomnia by a mental health doctor at Kadena Air Base (AB), Japan at the time of her discharge. Her commander denied her request to be transferred to the Air Force Reserves until the insomnia was cured. She then requested through the medical doctor, to be discharged until the insomnia was corrected. She was told she would be discharged with a reentry code of 2C- unable to adapt, and that once her insomnia was corrected she would be able to go back to active duty. After being discharged she stayed close to the military by working as a government contractor in Kuwait and Iraq doing the same job she did while on active duty. She has letters of recommendation to prove that she could do the job she was given even with insomnia. She discovered the unjust reentry code recently when she talked with an Air Force recruiter about how to return to active duty. She never wanted to leave the military in the first place, as evidenced by her request to transfer to the Reserves. She requests a reenlistment code change from 2C to any of the reenlistment codes in the “1” category so she may reenlist, finish her initial term and hopefully continue a long career in the military. In support of her request, the applicant provides a personal statement and letters of recommendation. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 November 2008. She was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class, E-3, with date of rank of 23 January 2009 On 2 March 2010, her commander notified her that he was recommending her for discharge under the provisions of Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3208 Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.11.9.3. The specific reason for this action was: on 9 February 2010, after a thorough evaluation, the staff psychiatrist of the mental health clinic diagnosed her with Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Depressed Mood. The staff psychiatrist noted that her condition was not amenable to hospitalization, treatment, transfer, disciplinary action, retraining or reclassification within the military system, and that it was unlikely that any effort to rehabilitate her into a satisfactory member of the military would be successful. Her disorder was of a severity that significantly impaired her ability to function effectively in a military environment. Furthermore, the staff psychiatrist stated the applicant was not considered worldwide qualified and should not be placed on mobility or deployment status. The staff psychiatrist recommended she be separated from the United States Air Force. On 2 March 2010, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander’s intent to discharge her and opted to consult counsel but waived her right to submit statements on her behalf. Subsequent to the file being found legally sufficient the discharge authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be discharged with an honorable character of service. The applicant was released from active duty effective 24 March 2010, with an honorable characterization of service, a separation code of “JFY” and a narrative reason for separation of “adjustment disorder.” She was credited with serving 1 year, 4 months, and 1 day of active duty. ______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states the applicant’s RE Code 2C is required per AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the USAF, chapter 3, based on her involuntary discharge with honorable character of service. The applicant does not provide any proof of an error or injustice in reference to her RE code, but states her letters of recommendation prove she can do the job she is given even with the insomnia. However, per her commander’s memorandum dated 2 March 2010, her medical condition adversely affected her duty performance, ability to carry out daily tasks, and her progress in training. The complete AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the applicant was thoroughly evaluated and was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood (DSM 309.28). This condition caused the applicant to be administratively unsuitable for duty. Additionally she was unable to carry a weapon or perform any critical duties and was not considered worldwide qualified therefore, she could not be placed in a mobility or deployment status. Her condition caused the unit to have to backfill Air Expeditionary Force (AEF) taskings which further impacted the unit’s deployment responsibilities. Although they are pleased that the applicant is apparently succeeding and coping well in her civilian capacity, it does not change the basis for which she was discharged from the Air Force. The military environment is unique and stressors encountered in such an environment may not appear or surface when the individual is removed from the military environment. The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: In her response, dated 19 September 2012, the applicant indicates that during the time she was seen by the mental health doctor at Kadena AB, Japan from November 2009 through March 2010; at no point was there either talk or was she informed of any type of a disorder. While she was on four different sleep medications she still performed her job as a security forces member. If there was any type of problem or if her Flight Sergeant was concerned about an adjustment disorder she would not have been allowed to be armed on any given day in accordance with AFMAN 31-201, Volume 3, Security, Flight Operations, chapter 1, section 1.9, Fitness for Duty. She reiterates her previous contention that she was told she would be discharged with a reentry code of 2C, unable to adapt, and once her insomnia was corrected she would be able to return to active duty. She further contends; had she known she would not be able to return to active duty she would have fought to stay on active duty. She has given all the evidence she has to prove she does not have an adjustment disorder and requests she be granted a reenlistment code so that she may reenlist with the military and complete the contract she started. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ 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 error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include her comments provided in her rebuttal to the Air Force evaluations and do not find that it supports a determination that the applicant was improperly separated from active duty in 2010. The RE code which was issued at the time of her separation accurately reflects the circumstances of her separation and we do not find it to be in error or unjust. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility 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 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 issue(s) 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 this application BC-2012-02353 in Executive Session on 6 December 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149 dated 16 May 2012, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 22 August 2012. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 10 July 2012. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 August 2012. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 19 September 2012, w/atchs.