RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00823
			COUNSEL:  	NONE
			HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her discharge characterization and her narrative reason for 
separation be changed.  


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was injured during basic training and has been awarded 
Department of Veteran’s Affairs (DVA) compensation.  

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 11 Sep 12, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 11 
Sep 12.

On 15 Nov 12, her commander notified her he was recommending she 
be discharged.  The specific reason for this action was the 
applicant was diagnosed with Axis I – adjustment disorder with 
depressed mood, as contained in the Diagnostic and Statistical 
Manual of Mental Disorders.  The condition was so severe that 
her ability to function in the military would be significantly 
impaired.  She was disqualified from retention in the Air Force.  
She acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and 
waived her right to counsel and to submit a statement on her on 
behalf.  

On 18 Nov 12, the discharge authority approved the separation 
and directed she be discharged with an entry level separation 
under the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Military Retirements and 
Separations and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of 
Airmen, under Mental Disorders.  

On 19 Nov 12, the applicant received an entry level separation 
with a narrative reason for separation of “Adjustment Disorder.”  
She served 2 months and 9 days of active duty.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice.  Airmen are given an 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 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 IAW DoD and Air 
Force instructions.

The mental health evaluation stated the diagnosis did not meet 
military service retention standards.  It also stated her 
condition was so severe that her ability to function effectively 
in a military environment was significantly impaired.  It is for 
these reasons the Separation Program Designator (SPD) code and 
narrative reason indicated on the DD Form 214 are correct.

Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel 
records, the discharge to include the SPD code, the narrative 
reason for separation and character of service was consistent 
with the procedural and substantive requirements of the 
discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the 
discharge authority.   DPSOR found no evidence of an error or 
injustice in the processing of the applicant's discharge.  

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AETC/SGPS recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice.  The applicant indicates her request 
was due to having left Achilles tendonitis; receiving 10% 
disability from the VA for which she receives a monthly payment.  
Her master personnel records show she self-referred to the 
Behavioral Analysis Service for depressive symptoms secondary to 
the military environment where she reported the military 
environment was “not for her” and that she couldn’t adapt to the 
military culture.  Based on the documentation in her file, 
AETC/SGPS finds the separation was done in accordance with 
established policy and administrative procedures.    

The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit D.  


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluation(s) were forwarded to the 
applicant on 20 Oct 14 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit E).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office.


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 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.


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and the 
application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of 
newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this 
application.


The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Feb 14.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 4 Apr 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AETC/SGPS, dated 6 May 14.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Oct 14.