RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00647
            INDEX CODE:  100.03
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her separation code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Since she was discharged because of Depression and  a  Personality  Disorder
she should not have to pay back the enlistment  bonus.   Her  symptoms  were
something she could not control.  She had every intention of fulfilling  her
full term.  Since her discharge, it has been hard  making  ends  meet.   She
was scared and  really  didn’t  know  what  was  going  on.   She  had  five
different doctors telling her  different  things  and  was  given  different
drugs such as Zoloft and Lithium.  People who worked with her in the  engine
shop at Eglin AFB can substantiate her performance as a  hard  worker.   She
was ahead on all her tasks and never showed up  to  work  late  or  had  any
record of misconduct before this incident.

In  support  of  her  request,  applicant  provides  a  personal  statement,
correspondence with DFAS regarding her bonus  recoupment,  an  excerpt  from
the DoD Financial Management Regulation, a copy of her DD Form 214,  a  copy
of an AF Form 77, Supplemental Evaluation Sheet and a copy of her  discharge
case file.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 26 April 2000, the applicant enlisted in the  Regular  Air  Force  for  a
period of 6 years as a guaranteed training  enlistee  for  training  in  Air
Force  Specialty  (AFS)  2A631  (Aerospace  Propulsion  Specialist).   In  a
supplement to the enlistment agreement signed by the applicant on  the  date
of her enlistment, the  applicant  acknowledged  that,  upon  completion  of
technical training and award of the 3-skill level in  her  guaranteed  AFSC,
she would be authorized payment  of  an  initial  enlistment  bonus  in  the
amount of $13,000.00 and that, should she voluntarily or  involuntarily  not
complete the term of obligated service for which  the  bonus  was  paid,  or
should she not maintain qualification  in  the  bonus  AFSC,  she  would  be
required to  repay  the  unearned  portion  of  the  bonus.   Following  her
successful completion of basic military  and  technical  training,  she  was
assigned to duties in AFSC 2A631 in October 2000.

On  12  February  2001,  the  applicant’s  commander   imposed   nonjudicial
punishment on the applicant, who was then serving in  the  grade  of  airman
first class, for violation of  Articles  92  and  134;  dereliction  in  the
performance of duties in that she willfully failed to refrain from  drinking
alcoholic beverages while under the age of twenty-one, and on  or  about  29
January 2001, wrongful possession of an official passport.   The  punishment
consisted of a reduction in grade to airman, effective and with  a  date  of
rank of 22 February 2001, and 30 days’ correctional custody suspended  until
21 August 2001 at which time, unless sooner vacated, it  would  be  remitted
without   further   action.    Additionally,   applicant   acknowledged   an
understanding regarding the  recoupment  of  education  assistance,  special
pay, or bonuses whether she voluntarily or  involuntarily  separated  before
completing her period  of  active  duty.   The  foregoing  proceedings  were
reviewed and found legally sufficient by the Assistant Staff Judge  Advocate
on 28 February 2001.

On 23 February  2001,  the  clinical  psychologist  endorsed  by  the  staff
psychiatrist advised  the  unit  commander  that  the  applicant  had  self-
referred for evaluation twice at the Outpatient  Mental  Health  Clinic  and
once in  the  Alcohol  and  Drug  Abuse  Prevention  and  Treatment  Program
(ADAPT).  The clinical psychologist stated that the applicant  was  refusing
to pursue treatment and based on this decision, her  preference  was  to  no
longer serve in the Air Force and that the likelihood of  her  improving  to
become a productive member of the Air Force was small.   She  was  diagnosed
with an Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and  Conduct.
 Based on this evaluation, the recommendation to the commanding officer  was
for an administrative discharge.

On 3 April 2001, in accordance with AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208,  Chapter  5,
Section B, Involuntary -- Convenience of  the  Government,  paragraph  5.11,
Conditions that Interfere with  Military  Service,  specifically,  paragraph
5.11.1 Mental  Disorders,  the  commander  initiated  discharge  proceedings
against the applicant.  The applicant was advised  of  her  rights  in  this
matter.  The applicant waived her right to counsel and to submit  statements
in her behalf.  On 10 April 2001, the discharge authority directed that  the
applicant be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of  AFI  36-
3208, Chapter 5, Section B, Involuntary -- Convenience  of  the  Government,
Paragraph  5.11,  Conditions   that   Interfere   with   Military   Service,
specifically paragraph 5.11.1, Mental Disorders, with character  of  service
as honorable.  The applicant was discharged on 12 April 2001  by  reason  of
“Personality Disorder” with a Separation Code of “JFX”  and  a  Reenlistment
Eligibility (RE) code of “2C.”  She had served 11  months  and  17  days  on
active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied.  The  BCMR
Medical Consultant states that the applicant was administratively  separated
due to an  adjustment  disorder  with  mixed  disturbance  of  emotions  and
conduct, and traits of a personality disorder.  Adjustment  and  personality
disorders are  lifelong  patterns  of  maladaptive  behavior  based  on  the
individual’s personality structure which are not medically disqualifying  or
unfitting but may render the  individual  unsuitable  for  further  military
service and may be cause for administrative action by the individual’s  unit
commander.  As such, members are held responsible  for  their  conduct,  and
they do not receive disability discharges.  The  applicant’s  argument  that
she was not technically qualified for a medical reason is  not  valid  since
her adjustment disorder did not directly impair her from performance of  her
job.  The  applicant  was  administratively  discharged  for  the  unsuiting
condition, adjustment disorder.   For  administrative  purposes,  adjustment
disorder and personality disorders are both considered unsuiting  conditions
and treated the same.  There is no separation code for  adjustment  disorder
and the personality disorder code is used.  The BCMR Medical  Consultant  is
of the opinion that no change in the records is  warranted  from  a  medical
perspective.

The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/JA recommends the application be  denied.   JA  states  that  Title  37
U.S.C. 308(d)(1) establishes criteria for recoupment of enlistment  bonuses.
 It states that recoupment  is  required  when  a  member  “voluntarily,  or
because of his misconduct, does not complete  the  term  of  enlistment  for
which a bonus was paid to him….”  The fundamental issues in  any  recoupment
case is not whether or not the  member  was  involuntarily  discharged,  but
whether or not the behavior that served as basis for  the  discharge  should
be considered voluntary or within the member’s control.  The  Department  of
Defense  has  determined  what  types  of  behavior  should  be   considered
voluntary for purposes of recouping bonuses  paid  to  members  who  do  not
complete their terms of service.  Recoupment is required for  administrative
discharges.   Recoupment  is  not  required  when  a  member  is   medically
discharged with a physical disability.  If a member is  discharged  for  any
kind of mental disorder (except in cases of physical disability), DFAS  will
recoup from the member any unearned bonuses he or  she  may  have  received.
The facts  show  that  the  Air  Force  properly  discharged  the  applicant
administratively, rather than  through  the  Disability  Evaluation  System.
The applicant  has  produced  no  evidence  to  suggest  otherwise.   DFAS’s
decision to recoup the applicant’s enlistment bonus was based  upon  both  a
proper application of the law and the DoD Financial  Management  Regulation.
JA finds no error  or  injustice  that  warrants  granting  the  applicant’s
request.

The AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be  denied.   DPPRS  states  that  the
applicant did not  submit  any  new  evidence  or  identify  any  errors  or
injustices that occurred  in  the  discharge  processing.   Based  upon  the
documentation in file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/DPPAE reviewed the RE code of 2X “First-term airman not yet  considered
under the  Selective  Reenlistment  Program  (SRP)”  is  incorrect.   On  17
September 2002, AFPC/DPPRSP, advised the applicant of the RE Code error  and
forwarded a DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form  214,  with  a  corrected  RE
code of 2C “Involuntarily separated with an honorable  discharge;  or  entry
level separation without characterization of service.”

The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to  the  applicant  on  4
October 2002 for review and response 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 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 error or injustice in the matter of the applicant’s  separation
code.  We note that she is seeking a change to her separation code in  order
to be relieved of the requirement that she reimburse the government for  the
unearned portion of the Initial Enlistment Bonus she received.   The  record
reveals that at the time of her enlistment,  she  acknowledged  that  should
she voluntarily or involuntarily not complete the term of obligated  service
for which the bonus was paid, or should she not  maintain  qualification  in
the bonus Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC), she would be  required  to  repay
the unearned portion  of  the  bonus.   The  separation  code  she  received
corresponds directly to the reason for her separation.  Other than  her  own
assertions, the applicant has provided no  evidence  indicating  the  reason
for her separation was erroneous or unjust.  Therefore, we  agree  with  the
assessments by the Air Force offices of  primary  responsibility  and  adopt
their conclusions as our findings in the case.  In the absence  of  evidence
that the reason for her separation  was  erroneous,  we  have  no  basis  to
favorably consider the applicant’s request for a change  to  her  separation
code.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of probable 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 6 February 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 February 2002, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, 20 May 2002.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 10 September 2002.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 17 June 2002.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, APFC/DPPAE, dated 21 August 2002.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 October 2002.





                                  THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                  Vice Chair