RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00926 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His uncharacterized discharge be upgraded to honorable. 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His discharge was unjust because it was based on one isolated 
incident that occurred in the first two weeks of his military 
service. Other than the one incident there was no other adverse 
action. He believes his discharge was not processed properly. He 
was not fully aware of what was happening during his psychological 
evaluation; he feels he was mislead and not given enough time to 
comprehend what was happening. He is a healthy and stable human 
being who will not get into any other trouble; he attends church 
and Christ is the center of his life. He does not have a criminal 
background and has never caused physical harm to another person and 
never will. He enjoys life and continues to grow. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, 
a copy of AF IMT 100, Request and Authorization for Separation, a 
copy of his discharge package, and a copy of a letter from Conyers 
Family Practice. 

 

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant was notified by his commander that he was 
recommending him for discharge from the Air Force under the 
provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, Chapter 5, Section 5B, 
Involuntary Convenience of the Government, paragraph 5.11, 
Conditions that Interfere with Military Service, paragraph 5.11.9, 
under Mental Disorders. The specific reason for this action was 
for being diagnosed by the Department of Mental Health, Wilford 
Hall Medical Center, as having a mental disorder as contained in 
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). 


The applicant waived his rights to consult counsel and to submit 
statements in his own behalf. He served 15 days on active duty. 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the applicant’s 
contentions are not accurate as his discharge record reveals that 
on 16 Jun 08, the applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment 
disorder because he reported having problems with suicidal ideation 
and problems adjusting to military life. It was also revealed that 
during the evaluation he had problems with stress reactivity since 
at least age 14 when his parents got divorced. He admitted to 
feeling unfit for duty; however, he would not hurt himself if he 
was allowed to be discharged. After reviewing all evidence in this 
case, DPSOS states there is no error in the applicant’s separation 
record; however, his DD Form 214 incorrectly reflects he was 
discharged from the Air Force with a separation code of “JFX” and a 
narrative reason of “Personality Disorder.” Although the 
separation code and narrative reason were annotated inaccurately, 
this does not mean the discharge was incorrect. DPSOS will 
administratively correct his records to reflect a separation code 
of “JFY” and narrative reason of “Adjustment Disorder.” However, 
the type of separation (entry-level) and character of service 
(uncharacterized) on his DD Form 214 is correct. 

 

The DPSOS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s 
request for a discharge upgrade. The Medical Consultant states 
that although the applicant contends his discharge was “unjust 
because it was based on one isolated incident in 2 weeks of service 
with no other adverse action;” the Medical Consultant opines that 
any person acting upon the impulse for suicide would also be an 
isolated, but final, incident. The Medical Consultant also opines 
that it appears the military service itself was the sentinel 
stressor that induced the applicant’s suicidal ideation; therefore, 
he believes the applicant is vulnerable for a recurrence of his 
maladaptive pattern of thought under the stressors beyond his span 
of control or ability to placate. The Medical Consultant 
acknowledges that the applicant does not request a change in his 
separation code and narrative reason; however, he finds such a 
change to be appropriate, as the errant reason currently listed on 
the document is likely to be a greater detriment to the applicant 
in any future social and occupational endeavors. Therefore, a 
corresponding change in the separation code would also be 
appropriate. The Medical Consultant believes the applicant has not 
met the burden of proof of an error or injustice that warrants the 
discharge to be upgraded. 

 

 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. 


 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 
on 26 Oct 10 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this 
date, this office has received no response. 

 

__________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 office of primary responsibility and the BCMR 
Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion that relief beyond that already administratively 
corrected is not warranted. Therefore, in the absence of evidence 
to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought in this application. 

 

4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will 
materially add to our understanding of the issue involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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-2009-00926 in Executive Session on 2 Dec 10, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 


 

, Panel Chair 

, Member 

, Member 

 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Feb 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 2 Aug 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 18 Oct 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Oct 10. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair