RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04173 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1.  Her entry-level separation (ELS) with uncharacterized service be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 2.  Her Reentry (RE) Code of 2C (entry-level separation with uncharacterized service) and separation program designator (SPD) code of JFY with the accompanying narrative reason for separation of “Adjustment Disorder,” be changed to allow reentry in the military. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was wrongfully discharged from the Air Force because the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (DVA) medical opinion found that a persistent mental health disability was not present in her military service. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 13 Mar 12. On 10 Aug 12, the 559 MDOS/SGPK (Behavioral Analysis Service (BAS)) diagnosed the applicant as having a condition as described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV)- Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety, severe enough that her ability to function in the military was significantly impaired, recommending an ELS. On 22 Aug 12, the applicant’s commander informed her that he was recommending her discharge from the Air Force because of her BAS 10 Aug 12, diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety. On the same day, the applicant acknowledged the commander’s recommendation and waived her rights to submit statements in her own behalf. On 24 Aug 12, the applicant’s commander advised the base discharge authority that in accordance with AFPD 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations, and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.11.9, he was recommending the applicant be discharged from the Air Force for conditions that interfere with military service, specifically, mental disorders, with an ELS without probation and rehabilitation. On 27 Aug 12, the 802 MSG/JA advised the discharge authority that it recommended he discharge the applicant with an ELS without probation and rehabilitation. On 31 Aug 12, the applicant was furnished an ELS without probation and rehabilitation, and was credited with five months, and eighteen days of active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are 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. Documentation on file in the applicant’s master personnel records, revealed 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. The applicant’s ELS was based on the diagnosis by the 559 MDOS/SGPK (BAS) as having a condition as described in the DSM-IV- Adjustment Disorder, with anxiety, severe enough that her ability to function in the military was significantly impaired and disqualified her from retention in the Air Force. 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 warranting change of the applicant’s RE code 2C. The applicant received a RE code of 2C (involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service) in accordance with AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, chapter 5. The applicant does not provide any evidence of an error or injustice in reference to her RE code, but states she was wrongfully diagnosed and discharged. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFBCMR IMA Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice warranting change in the applicant’s characterization of service, RE code 2C, or a change in the SPD code of JFY. The Medical Consultant opines that, based upon the symptoms the applicant experienced, BAS assessments, and findings from her cardiology evaluation, the applicant demonstrated signs and symptoms consistent with adjustment disorder with anxiety in accordance with the psychological assessment. Regarding applicant’s contention that the DVA’s post-service evaluation medically cleared her and believed she never had an adjustment disorder or any other disorder and was wrongfully discharged; the medical consultant conceded that since discharge and removal from the likely source of the applicant’s stress (security forces training), her Adjustment Disorder went into remission and she likely no longer presented a diagnosable active mental condition. However, returning the applicant to the rigors attendant with military service poses an uncertain return on investment and an unreasonable risk to the applicant’s wellbeing and for mission degradation. A complete copy of the AFBCMR IMA Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 1 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 OPRs 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-2014-04173 in Executive Session on 12 Aug 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-04173 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Nov 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 22 Dec 14. Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 26 Jan 15. Exhibit E.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical IMA Consultant, dated 1 Apr 15. Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Jun 15.