RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02081
INDEX CODE: 110.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C be changed to allow
enlistment into the Air National Guard (ANG).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
With less than a year left on his enlistment he was ordered to a one-
year remote assignment in Korea. He declined but the orders were
reissued. Once in Korea, he reenlisted and applied for an extension
to his one-year tour. The extension was approved but his tour was cut
short and he was forced to relocate, after many promises by his
supervisor to the contrary, to Seymour Johnson AFB in North Carolina.
Upon arrival at his new duty station, he spoke with his first sergeant
about getting orders back to Korea so he could consummate wedding
plans and complete Visa actions for his fiancé. He was told he was
stuck for two years and to “suck it up.” He asked to see his
commander, was denied this opportunity, and was sent instead to mental
health where he explained how he felt about enduring two Permanent
Change of Station (PCS) moves in a year and a half. After the
evaluation, he was told he was being separated and was harassed by his
first sergeant that speeded up his separation action. He was young
and immature and let his emotions cloud his vision. He has since
matured and would love to serve his country as he misses the pride in
wearing the uniform. He points to his attached Enlisted Performance
Reports (EPRs) as evidence he was a model airman.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a personal
statement, a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or
Discharge from Active Duty, and copies of his EPR’s covering the time
2 April 1997 through 11 December 2000.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered active duty on 2 April 1997. His EPR’s prior to
2001 reflected excellent duty performance as evidenced by ratings of 5
on a scale of 5. He was administratively discharged for unsuitability
(Adjustment Disorder and Personality) on 31 July 2001 after four
years, three months and twenty-nine days of service. He was serving
in the grade of senior airman (E-4) at the time of his separation. He
received an honorable discharge with a RE code of 2C, “Involuntarily
separated with an honorable discharge.”
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. He notes that prior
to 2001 the applicant had a documented history of excellent duty
performance. He was decertified from the Personnel Reliability
Program (PRP) apparently in part, due to his admission of experimental
use of marijuana use prior to entering active duty that he had not
disclosed at his enlistment. He was angry at things not going his way
and behaved in a manner that disrupted his unit, specifically by
making threats that were not otherwise specified. He developed
symptoms of depressed mood diagnosed as Adjustment Disorder. The
mental health evaluation in June 2001 also concluded that he
demonstrated maladaptive traits (immature and obsessive compulsive) of
sufficient severity to constitute a diagnosis of a Personality
Disorder severe enough to warrant an administrative discharge from the
Air Force for unsuitability.
The record documents Adjustment Disorder and Personality Disorder as
conditions not medically disqualifying or unfitting but may render the
individual unsuitable for further military service and may be cause
for administrative action. Adjustment Disorder is characterized by
marked psychological distress in response to identifiable stressors
that overcome the individual’s ability to cope and is frequently
associated with significant impairment in social and occupational
functioning. The emotional and behavioral responses may be in excess
of what would normally be expected given the nature of the stressors.
Manifestations can include depressed mood, anxiety, and disturbances
of conduct. A key feature of Adjustment Disorder is that the
condition resolves itself with relief of the stressors. Personality
disorders are lifelong patterns of maladjustment in the individual’s
personality structure, which are frequently exacerbated by stress and
may present with symptoms consistent with Adjustment Disorder.
The fact that he is functioning well at this time confirms his
diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder, however it does not predict that he
will respond well to the stresses of military service combined with
personal stressors or frustrations. The presence of maladaptive
traits as described above combined with his past experience is
predictive of an increased risk for recurrence of difficulties under
similar stressful circumstances. His otherwise superior duty
performance does not overcome the facts of the record documenting
unsuitability for continued military service, in particular the making
of threats against other in his unit, but clearly earned him the
Honorable characterization of service he received. Action and
disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting
compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.
The Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPRSP recommends denial. His commander notified him on 16 July
2001 that he was being recommended for discharge due to a condition
that interferes with military service, specifically a mental disorder.
His disorder hampered the mission effectiveness of his unit and made
him unable to continue the sensitive nature of his duties. DPPRSP
states the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any
errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.
Additionally, he provided no facts warranting a change in his
discharge. DPPRSP holds that the discharge was consistent with the
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation
and was within the discharge authorities discretion.
DPPRSP’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
31 October 2003 for review and comment within 30 days. 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 error or injustice. After a thorough review of the
evidence of record and applicant's submission, we do not find his
uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.
Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air
Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale
expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed
to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or injustice.
His otherwise superior duty performance does not overcome the facts
of the record documenting unsuitability for continued service, in
particular the making of threats against others in his unit. His
performance did, however, earn him the “Honorable” characterization of
service he received. Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence
to the contrary, we find no compelling 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(s) 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-
2003-02081 in Executive Session on 10 December 2003, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
Mr. J. Dean Yount, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Jun 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 12 Sep 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 7 Oct 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Oct 03.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-00868
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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-01172
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01172 INDEX CODE: 112.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation and reenlistment eligibility (RE) codes be changed. She was assigned a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-00124
Her physician at the time of discharge now states that she is completely better and supports her decision to return to the Air Force as long as she is not returned to her previous Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) of security forces. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant states that the applicant was discharged for unsuitability, due to Adjustment Disorder and maladaptive personality traits, on 6 Jun 03, after 2...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00767
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00767 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: VFW HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His uncharacterized discharge be changed to an honorable discharge and his records be corrected to show a different reason for discharge that would permit him to reenlist. On 8 February 2001, the applicant was discharged because...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00803
On 6 November 2002, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Personality Disorder). The AFBCMR Medical Consultant stated that the applicant’s records document an adjustment disorder and “strong maladaptive personality traits” versus personality disorder in combination with a lack of motivation for continued service. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03597
The reason why he separated from the Air Force was due to both his parents having medical problems. Individuals who develop an adjustment disorder due to the stress of the routine rigors of military service with or without concomitant personal issues are not suited for military service and are subject to administrative discharge by their commander. The evidence of record indicates that the applicant was given an entry level separation after being diagnosed with an adjustment disorder.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01386
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01386 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow him to enlist in the Army. The basis for this action was that the mental health recommendation to the applicant’s commander stated “While [the applicant’s] Adjustment...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02969
The recommendation further indicated the applicant possessed the skills and abilities necessary to function effectively in the military, his lack of motivation to remain in the Air Force and his perceived lack of support by the military community decreased the probability of effective treatment and increased the severity of symptoms impairing his ability to function. Additionally, he provided no facts warranting a change in his discharge. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02068
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02068 INDEX CODE: 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DES IRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code and narrative reason for separation be changed. In support of his request, the applicant submits a letter from his wife, two letters of recommendation and a copy of his DD Form...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-00930
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00930 INDEX CODE: 110.02 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: NONE xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to one that would allow her to reenlist. On 6 March 2003, the applicant was notified by her commander that he was recommending that she be...