RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01600 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge be changed to honorable and his reentry (RE) code 2C (involuntarily separated with honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service) be changed to 1 to allow him to reenlist. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He is fully fit and able to serve in the Air Force. At the time he left for basic training, his wife had recently miscarried their first child. They were newly married and that would have been their first child. They were devastated. He never had any previous accounts of this diagnosis and he believes it was the circumstances at that time which led to his misdiagnosis. He would like to return to the Air Force and finish the commitment he made to serve his country. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement and doctor’s notes. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 6 November 2012. On 4 December 2012, he was notified of his commander’s intent to discharge him from the Air Force for conditions that interfere with military service. Specifically, the applicant was diagnosed with having a mental disorder of a severity that would impact his ability to function in the military. The applicant acknowledged his right to counsel and submit matters on his behalf: he declined both. On 5 December 2012, the commander approved the applicant’s discharge. His service was uncharacterized and the type of separation was listed as entry level. His RE code was listed as 2C. He was credited with 1 month and 1 day of active duty service. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AETC/SGPS recommends approval. The applicant’s family experienced a medical emergency. Due to anxiety and worry, he could not focus on the issues before him in basic training. He was seen at the Reid Clinic where his providers felt it would be in everyone’s best interest to separate him from the military. There is no medical diagnosis that would prevent or limit his ability to be successful in the Air Force. Based on the medical documentation in the applicant’s records, the separation was done in accordance with established policy and administrative procedures. The complete AETC/SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. The applicant was on medical hold after completing one week of training in basic military training. He was seen at the Behavioral Analysis Service (BAS) expressing anxiety symptoms secondary to problems back home. He reported anxiety that prevented him from focusing on training requirements. He asserted impairment across diverse domains of functioning, including impaired sleep, impaired concentration, loss of energy and variable energy. The applicant stated during his interview that he needed to return home to care for his family and wife. The applicant’s unit noted that he was having problems with training and seemed to have problems adjusting to the military. The BAS noted the applicant was not motivated to continue in the military and said the applicant would prefer to be discharged. The applicant states he is fully fit and wishes to serve in the United States Air Force since his wife’s situation is now stable. His judgment and insight are intact; therefore, he is able to perform the duties required of him. While the applicant is apparently succeeding and coping well in his civilian capacity, it does not change the basis for which he was discharged from the Air Force. The military environment is unique and the stressors encountered in such an environment may not appear or surface when removed from the military environment. Airmen are given entry-level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service. The Department of Defense (DoD) determined if a member served less than 180 days continuous service, it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited service. Therefore, the uncharacterized service resulting in the reentry code of 2C is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. The RE code 2C is required based on his entry level separation and uncharacterized service. The applicant does not provide proof of an error or injustice with regard to his RE code. The applicant’s RE code was validated by AFPC/DPSOS and they recommended denial of his case. AETC/SGPS validated the applicant’s discharge processing; however, they recommended approval. RE code 2C is not driven by a medical condition and the medical community does not have the authority or valid input as to the correctness of the RE code. They are qualified to recommend the applicant be given the opportunity to be medically screened for reentry into the military service based on his current medical status. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 24 July 2013, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). As of this date, this office has received no 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; however, we are not persuaded by the evidence submitted in his appeal that a change in his record is warranted. His service characterization 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. We took note of AETC/SGPS’ evaluation; however, in view of the above and absent persuasive evidence that the applicant was denied rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or appropriate standards were not applied, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of AFPC/DPSOS and AFPC/DPSOA and adopt their rationale as the basis for our determination in this case. Accordingly, the applicant’s request 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-01600 in Executive Session on 12 December 2013 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Mar 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 19 Apr 13. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 16 May 13. Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 26 Jun 13. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Jul 13. 1 2