RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03584 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Her narrative reason for separation “Fraudulent Entry Into Military Service” and the corresponding separation code of “JDA” be changed. 2. By amendment the applicant requests her 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 her to reenlist. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Due to her position in security forces she needed a top secret clearance. In order to receive a top secret clearance she had to meet with different counselors. The counselors asked a variety of questions about her past to include a sexual assault that occurred when she was 11 years old. The meeting began to have an emotional effect on her - she became agitated and frustrated because she wanted the past to remain buried. During her last meeting with the counselors she was diagnosed with a history of anger issues and suicidal thoughts. This diagnosis is the reason for her entry level separation. Upon leaving the service she was told that she could reenlist in six months. In preparation to reenlist she was assessed by a psychologist who provided a statement on her behalf. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 13 September 2011. The applicant was notified by her commander of his intent to recommend that she be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208. The specific reason was on or about 4 January 2012, at a mental health evaluation conducted by a psychologist at Behavior Analysis Service (BAS), she revealed that she had a history of a suicide attempt and anger issues that occurred prior to her entry into the Air Force. Had the Air Force known of the severity of these conditions prior to enlistment, she may not have been allowed entry into the military. She was advised of her rights in this matter and waived her rights to consult with counsel and elected not to submit a statement on her own behalf. In a legal review of the case file, the assistant staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended discharge. The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed an entry level separation. The applicant was discharged on 16 February 2012. She served 5 months and 4 days on active duty. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AETC/SGPS recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change her narrative reason for separation; however, they do support a change in her reentry code. They state a review of the records provided and medical notes from WHMC reveal because of her selection for the security forces she was required to undergo mental health evaluations and it was noted in these evaluations that her background and mental health history would not allow her to continue in that duty and the military. She was subsequently processed for an entry level separation. She has since obtained a new mental health evaluation that notes the problem of the past has resolved and she has no DSM-IV diagnoses criteria and she should be allowed to apply to reenter the Air Force. They find the separation was done in accordance with established policy and administrative procedures. The SGPS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. They state on 4 January 2012, it was the medical staff opinion that the applicant had the disqualifying condition prior to enlistment. The applicant stated at age 14, she was sexually assaulted. The applicant did not want to disclose details about the assault. The assault was not substance related. However, the applicant did indicate that the assault resulted in her experiencing suicidal thoughts for several hours and perhaps up to a day or two. These thoughts led to suicidal behavior in which she planned to hang herself. Although the applicant did not want to disclose the details about her being sexually assaulted, she also agreed not to disclose the history of her prior suicidal ideations. They concur that fraudulent entry was the correct basis for discharge. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. She provided no facts warranting a change to her separation code, reentry code or narrative reason for separation. The DPSOR complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states during basic training she was an element leader. She was never washed back nor had any issues. Because of her job assignment - she had to have an evaluation to determine if she was suitable for the position. Based on the evaluation - she was not suited for the job. Upon leaving Lackland Air Force Base she was told that she could reenlist in six months. With this knowledge she received a psychological assessment which indicated she did have thoughts of suicide; however, she is currently in her right mind to bear arms in the military. She further states even with the clearance from her psychologist, it will be hard for her to continue her career in the Air Force due to the RE code she received. The applicant’s complete response 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We note the applicant provided a mental health evaluation from her personal psychologist who indicates no problems were identified in the evaluation process deserving clinical attention and the psychologist recommends that she be allowed to reenlist. AETC/SGPS states that since the applicant does appear to meet current medical criteria for military duty they support a change to her RE code. Although the narrative reason for separation and RE code assigned at the time of the applicant’s separation are correct, we believe the narrative reason to be too harsh. In an effort to provide her an opportunity to further serve her country, we believe that in the interest of equity and justice, relief is in order. Therefore, we recommend her narrative reason for separation reflect Secretarial Authority and her RE code be changed to “3K.” RE-3K is a waiverable code and will provide her an opportunity to apply for enlistment. Whether or not she is successful will depend on the needs of the service and our recommendation in no way guarantees that she will be allowed to return to any branch of the service. Therefore, we recommend that her records be corrected as indicated below. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 16 February 2012, she was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 1-2, (Secretarial Authority) with a Separation Program Designator code of KFF and a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 3K. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-03584 in Executive Session on 25 April 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-03584 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 August 2012, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 5 October 2012. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 8 November 2012 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 November 2012. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, not dated.