RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00947 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His narrative reason for separation be changed from “Adjustment Disorder” to “Secretarial Authority” and his separation code be changed from “JFY” to “JFF.”_ 2. His character of service be changed from uncharacterized to honorable. 3. His Re-entry (RE) code of “2C,” Approved Honorable Involuntary Separation or Entry Level Separation, be changed to allow him to reenlist in the military. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: When he arrived at basic training all was well until he received disturbing news from home that his relationship with his girlfriend was ending. Additionally he received word that there was a new sibling on the way, that he would not be able to see, and his grandmother's health was suffering. These developments while at basic training caused him a lot of stress and sadness and a lapse in judgment led him to seek guidance at the Behavioral Analysis Service (BAS). After two brief sessions with a social worker, not a psychologist, the determination was made that he would be given a separation for an adjustment disorder, with his concurrence. At that time he was in such a confused state that he signed his concurrence for an adjustment disorder separation under duress. This was a mistake. What was a greater mistake; however, was for the social worker, under the direction of the psychologist, to issue a recommendation of an adjustment disorder as he was given too short a timeframe for improvement. Their meetings were only one week apart. He believes that had he been able to speak with a trained psychologist and had he been given more time he would have improved and graduated basic training. It was too hasty a decision to separate him for a mental disorder before he had time to show improvement. He believes two sessions with a social worker is not enough to warrant a mental disorder diagnosis, a separation from the military, and a barring from future service. In support of his request the applicant submitted a personal statement, a copy of his certificate of appreciation from the Air Force Recruiting Service and an excerpt, from an unnamed source, regarding adjustment disorders. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to copies of documents extracted from the Automated Records Management System (ARMS) the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 18 December 2012. On 23 January 2013 the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending him for discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 Military Retirements and Separations and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, Chapter 5, Section 5B, Involuntary Convenience of the Government, paragraph 5.11, Conditions that Interfere with Military Service, paragraph 5.11.9.1, under Mental Disorders. The specific reason for this action was; the applicant was diagnosed as having a mental disorder as contained in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). They determined this condition interfered with duty performance and conduct and was severe enough that his ability to function in the military was significantly impaired evaluation by a licensed psychologist and was diagnosed as having a personality disorder. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and was advised of his right to consult counsel and submit a statement to the commander for consideration. He waived his rights to consult counsel and submit a statement in his behalf. Subsequent to the file being found legally sufficient the discharge authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be separated with an entry level separation. The applicant was released on 25 January 2013, with a narrative reason for separation of “Adjustment Disorder” and a separation code of “JFY.” ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 1. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. DPSOR states the applicant's diagnosis disqualified him for the personnel reliability program (PRP), security clearance, and weapons handling, which did not allow him to continue further training. It also disqualified him from retention in the Air Force. 2. The applicant was seen at the Behavioral Analysis Service (BAS) for two visits after self-referral for difficulty adjusting to BMT including hopelessness, low motivation and symptoms of depressed mood. At the time of the applicant's discharge he stated his current symptoms had increasingly worsened since the beginning of training. The applicant also reported his current symptoms included sleep latency issues, decreased interest, low energy, excessive guilt, poor concentration, decreased appetite, and decreased activity. The applicant denies any history of mental health problems, but his family history was positive for major affective disorders. The applicant's mental health evaluation stated that due to his symptoms, his motivation to continue in training was significantly low. The report also stated the combination of the applicant's mental health disorder and low motivation which would likely cause problems with his adaptation to military life and become a liability to the USA. Therefore, it was recommended that the applicant be discharged. 3. 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 her DD Form 214 is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions. 4. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the narrative reason for separation and separation code was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. They found no evidence of an error or injustice in the processing of the applicant's discharge. The complete AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states the RE Code 2C is required based on the entry level separation with uncharacterized service and the applicant does not provide any evidence of an error or injustice in reference to his RE Code. The complete AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 10 May 2013 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). To date, this office has not received a response. ________________________________________________________________ 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 in judging the merits of the case and are not persuaded that it supports a determination that the applicant was improperly separated from active duty. The narrative reason for separation, character of service, and RE code which were issued at the time of the applicant’s separation accurately reflect the circumstances of his separation and we do not find it to be in error or unjust. In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our determination in this case. Accordingly, the applicant’s requests are 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 in Executive Session on 5 November 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-00947: Exhibit A. DD Form 149 dated 18 February 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 14 April 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 7 May 2013. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 May 2013.