Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01981
Original file (BC-2002-01981.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                             RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-01981
            INDEX CODE:       100.03, 100.06
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The  circumstances  surrounding  her  discharge  were  corrupt.    She
contends that circumstances surrounding an improper relationship  with
a Marine Corp NCO who was an instructor  at  the  Explosive  Ordinance
School, which she was a student, caused  the  symptoms  of  adjustment
disorder and her discharge from the Air Force.

In support of her request, applicant provided a copy of  her  DD  Form
214, Certificate of Release  or  Discharge  from  Active  duty  and  a
personal statement.  Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 14 March 2001 for a
term of 4 years.

The applicant was first seen in the clinic on 26 July  2001  reporting
that she was unhappy with  military  life,  and  had  decreased  mood.
Additional circumstances reported included that she had just broken up
with her fiancé, and was far  from  family  and  frustrated  that  she
hasn't seen them.  She reported a history of an eating  disorder  (was
treated by her family physician in Tennessee  with  medication).   She
reported that she had had symptoms for 4  months  (i.e.  approximately
since the end of the  March  2001,  during  basic  military  training)
including  depressed  mood,  decreased  sleep,   decreased   appetite,
anxiety, spontaneous crying,  and  loss  of  interest  in  pleasurable
activities.  The physician felt she was depressed, started her  on  an
antidepressant medication  and  referred  her  to  the  mental  health
clinic.

She was seen in the mental health clinic on 3 August 2001,  where  she
reported breaking up with her boyfriend.   The  mental  health  clinic
entry documents a prior  history  of  depression  as  well  as  eating
disorder prior to entering service.  "Client does  report  history  of
dysthymia and major depression and agrees to  follow  with  signing  a
release for records from her previous physician who  treated  her  for
depression."   Her  diagnosis  was  felt  to  be   Major   Depression,
recurrent.  On the 27 August 2001 mental health clinic entry,  a  four
(4) year history of depression treated with multiple medications,  and
two (2) suicide attempts were recorded.  In addition, some history  of
a turbulent childhood was indicated and it was felt that she  did  not
meet diagnostic criteria for Post Traumatic Stress  Disorder  at  that
time.

A memorandum from her psychiatrist dated 29  August  2001  recommended
administrative separation for Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood,
and Eating Disorder,  Not  Otherwise  Specified.   A  diagnosis  of  a
personality disorder was not definitively made nor excluded (Axis  II:
deferred").

On 7 September 2001 she was  notified  of  her  commanders  intent  to
recommend that  she  be  discharged  from  the  Air  Force  under  the
provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI  36-3208,  paragraph  5.1.11.1.   The
reason for this action was  that  she  was  diagnosed  with  a  mental
disorder.   She  was  advised  of  her  rights  in  this  matter   and
acknowledged receipt of the notification on  that  same  date.   After
consulting counsel she elected to waive her right to submit matters on
her own behalf.  In a legal review of the case file, the wing attorney
advisor found the case legally sufficient and recommended that she  be
discharged  without  probation  and  rehabilitation.    The  discharge
authority concurred with the recommendation and directed that  she  be
discharged with an entry-level separation.  She served 6 months and 18
days on active duty and was issued an RE code of “2C.”

_____________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  reviewed   applicant’s   request   and
recommends denial.  The Medical Consultant states that  the  applicant
developed symptoms of depression due to an adjustment disorder and was
administratively separated for that unsuiting condition.  The time  of
onset of her symptoms reported in her initial clinic  visit  indicates
that these symptoms began approximately 2 months prior to the start of
the improper relationship she  reports  in  her  letter.   During  her
mental health evaluations, a history  of  existing  prior  to  service
depression, suicide attempts and an eating disorder were revealed.  It
is  very  likely  that  had  she  revealed  that  history  during  her
enlistment medical  evaluation,  she  would  have  been  rejected  for
enlistment.  The circumstances she alleges in  her  letter  requesting
correction would certainly  aggravate  her  symptoms.     The  Medical
Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE reviewed applicant’s request and recommends denial.   Based
on the review of  his  case  file,  her  RE  code  2C,  “Involuntarily
separated with an  honorable  discharge;  or  entry  level  separation
without characterization of service” is correct.  The DPPAE evaluation
is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPRS reviewed applicant’s request and  recommends  denial.   The
applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify  any  errors  or
injustices that occurred in the discharge  processing.   Additionally,
she provided no facts warranting a change in his discharge.  The DPPRS
evaluation is at attachment E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
15 Nov 02, 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  an  error  or  injustice  to  warrant  changing  her
reenlistment eligibility (RE) code.  Evidence has not been provided in
support of her appeal, which would lead us to believe that a change to
her RE code is warranted.  Therefore, we agree with the  opinions  and
recommendations of the BCMR  Medical  Consultant  and  the  Air  Force
office of primary responsibility and  adopt  their  rationale  as  the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of
an error or  injustice.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  persuasive
evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Docket  Number  BC-2002-
01981 in Executive Session on 9 April 2003, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
                 Ms. Martha Maust, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 June 2002 w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 19 Aug 02.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 12 Nov 02.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Sep 02.
      Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Nov 02.





      MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
      Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-00868

    Original file (BC-2003-00868.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00868 INDEX CODE: 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her records be corrected to enable reenlistment into the Air Force. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01129

    Original file (BC-2002-01129.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01129 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) Code be changed to allow her to reenlist. The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPPAE states, in part, that the RE Code of 2C (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02947

    Original file (BC-2002-02947.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-02947 INDEX CODE: 100.03, 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to one that would allow her to enlist in the Air National Guard. She served 3 months and 8 days on active duty and was issued an RE code of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02937

    Original file (BC-2002-02937.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Available Department of Veterans Administration (DVA) medical documentation shows that in 1999 she still reported symptoms of the conditions for which she was disability discharged. The documentation provided is insufficient to show that the applicant is now fit for active duty. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the BCMR Medical Consultant and the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00643

    Original file (BC-2003-00643.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00643 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reason for discharge, Fraudulent Entry into Military Service, be changed to a medical discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant states that...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03206

    Original file (BC-2002-03206.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03206 INDEX CODE: 110.02, 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation and reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed. The applicant developed symptoms of grief depressed mood while in technical training that was diagnosed as Adjustment Disorder with...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03206

    Original file (BC-2002-03206.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03206 INDEX CODE: 110.02, 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation and reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed. The applicant developed symptoms of grief depressed mood while in technical training that was diagnosed as Adjustment Disorder with...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00064

    Original file (BC-2005-00064.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00064 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 8 JUL 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her separation date be changed from 12 September 2002 to 19 September 2002. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The records...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200832

    Original file (0200832.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE recommended denial. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01742

    Original file (BC-2003-01742.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A follow-up evaluation on 19 September 1996 rendered a diagnosis of major depression vs. dysthymia and she was treated with the antidepressant medicine Prozac. The applicant’s history of recurrent major depression requiring hospitalization was clearly disqualifying for continued active duty. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error...