RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03856 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Separation Program Designator (SPD) and Reentry (RE) codes be changed so that she may join the Air National Guard. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She desires to join the Air National Guard; however, her current SPD and RE codes are preventing this action. She would like the Board to be aware that during her time in the Air Force she was in an abusive marriage and the stress of married life impacted her ability to serve. She is no longer married and returning to service is her top priority. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 3 Apr 12. On 1 Jul 13, the applicant accepted an Article 15, Nonjudicial Punishment, for disrespecting and assaulting a noncommissioned officer in violation of Article 91 and 128 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. She was reduced in rank to airman basic (suspended), given 21 days of extra duty, and reprimanded. On 29 Jul 13, the Behavioral Health Clinic notified the applicant’s commander of the results of a command directed evaluation. They diagnosed the applicant with a personality disorder which is so severe that the applicant’s ability to function in the military is significantly impaired. They also deemed the applicant is unsuitable for continued military service. On 11 Sep 13, the applicant acknowledged notification that her commander was recommending her for discharge in accordance with AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, Chapter 5, paragraph 5.11.9.3. On 30 Sep 13, the discharge authority directed an Honorable conditions discharge without probation and rehabilitation based on conditions that interfere with military service: Mental Disorders - Adjustment Disorder. On 4 Oct 13, the applicant was furnished an Honorable discharge, and was credited with one year, six months, and two days of active service. The applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, reflects a SPD code of “JFY” -- “Service initiated discharge directed by established directive when an adjustment disorder exists, not amounting to a disability which significantly impairs the member's ability to function effectively in the military environment” and a RE code of “2C” - - “Involuntary Separated with an Honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service.” The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibits C, D, and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel record the discharge to include the SPD code, 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. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant received an involuntary discharge with a narrative reason for separation of “Adjustment Disorder”. The applicant received an RE code of “2C” -- (Involuntary separated with an Honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service) as required by AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the Air Force, Chapter 5, based on her involuntary separation. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. The AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. They are aware of the cycle of violence that can often occur in abusive relationship and the negative impact this experience can have on an individual’s occupational, relational, or psychological functioning. This Consultant opines that the applicant’s request implies that had she not been in the abusive relationship then her work performance and psychological functioning would not have suffered in a way to require administrative separation. It is observed that the applicant did not provide evidence refuting the diagnosis on which her separation was based. In accordance with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, an adjustment disorder is diagnosed when an individual’s emotional and/or behavioral reaction to a stressor is determined to be out of proportion or excessive in the context of the given stressor. It is also expected to remit upon the stressor’s resolution or removal (in this case, military service). Personality disorders can be expected to continue to create functional impairments as a person ages, and they may appear more prominent in situations where prior stabilizing forces are removed (as can occur upon entry into military service or upon change in relational status). In this particular case, the evaluating psychiatrist built a compelling argument to support the applicant’s diagnoses, including factors involving the etiology, maintenance, and exacerbation of each disorder. They conclude there is no evidence to suggest the applicant’s behavior would remain functional if she was permitted reentry into military service and the associated rigors of its many austere operational environments. A complete copy of the AFPC/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 17 Feb 15 and 23 Jun 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). 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 an 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 (OPR) and the AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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 members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03856 in Executive Session on 18 Aug 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03856 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Sep 14. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 5 Nov 14. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 9 Jan 15 Exhibit E. Memorandum, AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant, dated 9 Jun 15. Exhibit F. Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Feb 15 and 23 Jun 15.