RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04210 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Separation Program Designator (SPD) Code “JFY” which denotes “Adjustment Disorder” be changed to allow reenlistment in the Armed Forces. His Reentry (RE) Code “2C” which denotes “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” be changed to allow reenlistment in the Armed Forces. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The SPD and RE codes are inequitable based on a one-time event. He was informed upon discharge that he would be able to reenlist in any other branch of service other than the Air Force if he received treatment. He received counseling to correct his adjustment disorder as instructed. His SPD code “JFY” should be changed to “JGA” which denotes “Entry level performance and conduct” or “JG7” or “JET” which denote “Trainee Discharge” to allow reenlistment in the Armed Forces. His RE code “2C” should be changed to “3A” which denotes “First- term airman who separates before completing 36 months (60 months for six-year enlistee) on current enlistment and who has no known disqualifying factors or ineligibility conditions except grade, skill level and insufficient total active federal military service” or “3B” which denotes “first or second term or career airman ineligible to reenlist, ineligibility condition no longer exists.” He was under stress while in Basic Military Training (BMT) and suffered panic attacks and high anxiety when disciplined by a Military Training Instructor (MTI) who resembled his father who had physically abused him. He was diagnosed with Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and administratively separated 18 days after his enlistment. His doctors told him to seek treatment and that he could reenlist after six months since he would not have a military record. He received treatment from a psychologist so he could reenlist in the Armed Forces. His doctor wrote a treatment summary and deemed him fit for the stresses and rigors of military training and service. He is now 25 years old, he has matured and has thrived in the jobs he has held and has led his employees to be successful. He would be an asset if allowed to reenlist in the Army. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 3 November 2009, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 18 November 2009, the applicant was notified by his commander he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force in accordance with AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for a condition that interferes with military service, specifically for mental disorders. The reason for the recommendation was that the applicant was diagnosed by the Department of Mental Health, Wilford Hall Medical Center (WHMC) as having a mental disorder as contained in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). The diagnoses include Axis I, Mental Disorder, Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood; and Axis IV, Psychosocial Stressors, recent entry to Air Force, training environment. On 18 November 2009, the applicant acknowledged the discharge notification, waived his right to consult counsel and declined to submit statements in his own behalf. On 19 November 2009, the staff judge advocate found the recommendation for discharge legally sufficient. On 19 November 2009, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s Entry Level Separation (ELS) for conditions that interfere with military service, specifically mental disorders. On 20 November 2009, the applicant was discharged with an ELS, uncharacterized character of service, RE Code “2C” and narrative reason for separation of “Adjustment Disorder.” The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force Offices of Primary Responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D, E and F. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AETC/SGPS recommends denial of the applicant’s requests. The applicant’s discharge to include the type of separation was appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not provide any evidence that an error or injustice occurred in the processing of his discharge. However, under current medical standards an applicant can be considered for a waiver after a mental health multiaxial evaluation stating resolution to the underlying issue that led to the incident. A review of the records provided and medical notes from WHMC, reflects the applicant provided a typed synopsis of the events that stated he was physically abused as a child by his father and that the MTI resembled his father which gave him panic attacks and high anxiety when being disciplined by the instructor. On 7 November 2009, he was admitted to the inpatient unit for suicidal ideations where he received treatment and was released from care on 13 November 2009 with a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. He stated he understood the diagnoses and treatment plan; subsequently, he was processed for an ELS. A complete copy of the AETC/SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s requests. 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. DPSOR found no evidence of an error or injustice in the discharge processing. The applicant was evaluated at the inpatient unit on 7 November 2009 for suicidal ideation. The conclusion reached was that his adjustment disorder was severe and he was not suitable for retention in the Air Force and should be separated as soon as possible. The applicant was encouraged to seek mental health treatment when he returned to civilian status and discharge action was initiated. Therefore, the SPD code and narrative reason for separation are correct as indicated on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. The applicant’s service characterization is also correct as indicated on his DD Form 214. Airmen are given ELS/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days 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 is correct and in accordance with DOD and Air Force instructions. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request for a change of his RE Code. The applicant provides no evidence of an error or injustice in reference to his RE code but states he has received treatment and is better equipped to handle the stressors of the military environment. The applicant does not meet the criteria for RE codes “3A” or “3B” and on 12 December 2014, AFPC/DPSOR validated the applicant’s discharge processing to include his ELS with uncharacterized character of service and recommended denial. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit E. The BCMR Psychiatric Advisor recommends denial of the applicant’s request for change of RE and SPD codes. When an acute adjustment disorder is so severe as to significantly interfere with an individual’s ability to perform military service, the member is susceptible for an involuntary discharge under AFI 36-3208. The Psychiatric Advisor does not argue that transition into the military is stressful; nevertheless, it should not result in the psychiatric admission of the healthy individual. Since the applicant decompensated after four days of training, the Psychiatric Advisor opines he entered the service with a very fragile state of mind which resulted in a failure to adjust. He was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder by a military psychiatrist and by his civilian psychologist. By DSM IV/V, adjustment disorder is characterized by “marked distress that is out of proportion to the severity or intensity of the stressor.” The key phrase is “out of proportion” to what normally would be expected in a particular situation. The letter from a psychologist in 2010 and the applicant’s self-report demonstrates he is doing very well at this time but this is outside of the military, without its demands and stressors. There is already evidence that the applicant did not function well at the time of severe stress and returning him to the military poses uncertain risks of recurrence of mental health illness when he is confronted with stressors beyond his span of control; particularly under operational conditions confronted by all Military Departments, regardless of service component or career field. A complete copy of the BCMR Psychiatric Advisor’s evaluation is at Exhibit F. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force and the BCMR Psychiatric Advisor’s evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 2 March 2016 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit G). 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. The Board is pleased to hear the applicant has received treatment and is doing well; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice in the processing of the applicant’s ELS, to include his RE and SPD codes or narrative reason for separation. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force OPRs and the BCMR Psychiatric Advisor and adopt their rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In view of the above and 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-2014-04210 in Executive Session on 22 March and 4 April 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-04210 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 October 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AETC/SGPS, dated 25 November 2014. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 12 December 2014. Exhibit E. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 29 January 2015. Exhibit F. Memorandum, BCMR Psychiatric Advisor, dated 1 March 2016. Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 March 2016.