RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01469

XXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE
	
  	HEARING REQUESTED: NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

1.	His Reentry (RE) Code “2C” (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge), be changed to allow him to enlist in the Air Force Reserve.

2.	His narrative reason for separation of “Mental Disorder – Other” and corresponding separation program designator (SPD) code “JFE” be replaced with “Secretarial Authority.”

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

He was told he was going to be “ruined” and was ordered to attend a mandatory mental health evaluation.  He was then diagnosed with a mental disorder.  It was clear the diagnosis was influenced by inaccurate statements regarding his character and work performance.  The statements in the mental health report were made by the people who sent him to the evaluation in the first place.  He was awarded an Air Force Achievement Medal, thanked for his service and told to move on with his life.  

He provides a report of evaluation from a neuropsychologist dated 15 Aug 13, which states there was no diagnosis.  Asperger’s Disorder was ruled out and there was no evidence of any paranoid traits.  He provides copies of his enlisted performance reports (EPRs), award citations, the mental health report and other documents in support of his requests.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a former Air Force senior airman (E-4).     

On 14 Mar 13, the applicant was diagnosed with Asperger’s Disorder, Occupational Problem and Paranoid Personality Disorder features.  He was recommended for discharge since his diagnosis did not meet the criteria for a medical evaluation board (MEB).  The report states he was seen for three non-emergency commander directed mental health evaluations after referral by his commander due to concerns about his marked change in work performance, relationships and negative behavior which began around 1 Nov 12.  His behavior deteriorated to a point where he was disrespectful to a commissioned officer, for which he received a letter of reprimand (LOR).  

On 21 Mar 13, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to discharge him for a mental disorder in accordance with AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen. 

On 22 Mar 13, the applicant consulted legal counsel and submitted a written statement on his own behalf.

On 29 Mar 13, the discharge authority approved an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

On 10 Apr 13, the applicant was discharged with an honorable discharge, RE code “2C” SPD “JFE” and a narrative reason for separation of “Mental Disorder (Other).” He was credited with 3 years, 6 months and 19 days of active duty service.  

On 10 Mar 15, the applicant’s case was administratively closed per his request for additional time to review the advisory opinions and provide additional evidence in support his request.  

In an undated letter, the applicant requested his case be re-opened.  

On 6 Aug 18, the BCMR received another request his case be administratively closed.   On 4 Oct 18, his case was administratively closed per his request.    

On 3 Jan 22, the applicant requested his case be re-opened.  

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory opinions at Exhibits C, D, E and J.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  Based on the documentation, the discharge, to include the SPD code and narrative reason for separation, was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  There was no evidence of an error or injustice.  

The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial.  The applicant provides no proof of an error but wants to reenter the military.  The RE Code “2C” is the correct RE code based on his involuntary discharge.  

The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.  

The AFBCMR Medical Advisor recommends partial relief by changing his narrative reason and SPD code to reflect “Secretarial Authority.”  When collectively considering his laudatory record of performance and the independent assessment and observations of a psychologist the same year after his discharge, the Medical Consultant recommends rendering the benefit of doubt in favor of the applicant.  Burdening the applicant with a lifelong label on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, for a mental health condition that has been reasonably brought into question constitutes an injustice.  However, such doubt has not been sufficiently met to warrant a change to his RE code.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent copies of the advisory opinions to the applicant on 23 Jan 15 for comment (Exhibit F).  In an undated letter, he requested his case be administratively closed.   

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFRBA Psychological Advisor completed a review of all available records and finds sufficient evidence to support partial relief to change his Narrative Reason for Separation to Secretarial Authority.”  Asperger’s Disorder or what is commonly known as high functioning autism is considered a neurodevelopmental disorder.  Neurodevelopmental disorders originate in infancy or childhood.  Therefore, conditions that develop in adulthood cannot be classified as neurodevelopmental.  The evaluation by the military psychologist collected collateral information; however, without the ability to demonstrate the applicant exhibited “autistic” symptoms in childhood, the diagnosis of Asperger’s Disorder is invalid.  Further, the documentation supports he had a sudden and negative change in his behavior.  He was performing at a very high level but then reportedly began to have problems.  It was clearly documented during multiple AHLTA entries his behavior changed in Nov 12, three years after his enlistment.  Since Asperger’s Disorder is chronic and pervasive in nature, it cannot be used to explain the change in his conduct.  Therefore, the assessment of the civilian neuropsychologist who evaluated the applicant post-discharge is more reliable.  The Psychiatric Advisor opines the change in the RE code is not warranted because there is clearly documented change in his conduct, even though the underlying reason for the deterioration is unknown and could be multifactorial.  

The complete advisory is at Exhibit J.  

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the additional advisory opinion to the applicant on 12 Jul 18 for comment (Exhibit K).  On 3 Jan 22, the applicant requested his case be re-opened (Exhibit N).  

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is the victim of an error or injustice.  While the Board notes the recommendations of AFPC/DPSOR and DPSOA to deny the applicant’s requests, the Board concurs with the rationale and recommendations of the AFBCMR Medical and Psychological Advisors and finds a preponderance of the evidence substantiates the applicant’s contentions in part.  Specifically, the applicant has provided an evaluation from a neuropsychologist dated 15 Aug 13, which brings into question the applicant’s mental health diagnosis while in service.  In view of the evidence provided by the applicant, the Board finds it in the interest of justice to change his narrative reason for separation and SPD code to reflect “Secretarial Authority.”  However, since the applicant’s record reflects there was a marked change in his work performance and negative behavior, the Board finds insufficient evidence to justify granting the applicant’s request for change of his RE Code.  Accordingly, the Board finds no basis to recommend granting that portion of the applicant’s request.  Therefore, the Board recommends correcting the applicant’s records as indicated below.
RECOMMENDATION

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued in conjunction with his discharge on 10 Apr 13 be amended as follows:

a.	 Block 26, Separation Code to reflect “JFF.”

b.	 Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, to reflect “Secretarial Authority.”

However, regarding the remainder of the applicant’s request, the Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2014-01469 in Executive Session on 23 Feb 22:

 , Panel Chair
 , Panel Member
 , Panel Member

All members voted to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 2 Apr 14.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 18 Apr 14.
Exhibit D: Advisory opinion, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 10 Jun 14.
Exhibit E: Advisory opinion, BCMR Medical Consultant, 3 Nov 14.
Exhibit F:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 23 Jan 15.
Exhibit G:	Applicant’s response, undated.
Exhibit H: Notification of Administrative Close, SAF/MRBC, dated 10 Mar 15.
Exhibit I:   Applicant’s response, undated.
Exhibit J:  Advisory opinion, BCMR Mental Health Consultant, dated 14 Jun 18.
Exhibit K:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC, dated 12 Jul 18.  
Exhibit L:  Applicant’s response, undated.
Exhibit M: Notification of Administrative Close, SAF/MRBC, dated 4 Oct 18
Exhibit N: Applicant’s response, dated 3 Jan 22.  

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.