RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02240
                                             INDEX CODE:  110.00; 110.02
                                             COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The reason and authority for his separation, his separation  code,  and  his
reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed.
________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was informed the separation  code  “JGA”  (Entry  Level  Performance  and
Conduct) implies that he was involuntarily separated, and this is not  true.
 He voluntarily spoke with a psychologist at the Keesler AFB  hospital,  and
requested separation.  The Veterans Affairs Office in Waco,  Texas,  advised
him to submit an application (DD 293) to  the  Air  Force  Discharge  Review
Board (AFDRB).  He was informed by AFDRB that his request was  beyond  their
authority.  His recruiter later advised him that he  was  not  eligible  for
reenlistment into Active Duty or Reserve components because of his  RE  Code
of 2C.

In support of his application, the applicant provided a  personal  statement
and a DD Form 293, Application for Review of  Discharge  or  Dismissal  from
the Armed Forces of the United States.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 26 May 1999, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at  the  age
of 21 in the grade of airman for a period of six years.  He completed  Basic
Military Training School in July 1999, and was  assigned  as  an  Electronic
Computer Switching Systems Helper for one month.

Based on a 6 August 1999 Mental Health Evaluation, on 18  August  1999,  the
applicant’s commander notified the applicant that she  was  recommending  he
be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions  of  AFPD  36-32,  and
AFI 36-3208, Chapter 5, because  of  Entry  Level  Performance  and  Conduct
(unsuitability).  The applicant acknowledged  receipt  of  the  notification
and waived his rights to consult counsel and submit statements  in  his  own
behalf.  On 23 August  1999,  the  discharge  case  file  was  reviewed  and
coordinated on in the Wing Staff Judge Advocate’s office.   The  recommended
separation  was  subsequently  approved  by  the  discharge  authority,  who
directed that the applicant be  separated  with  an  uncharacterized  entry-
level separation.

On  25  August  1999,  the  applicant  was  separated  with  an  entry-level
separation because of Entry Level Performance and Conduct.   He  had  served
three months on active duty.  A reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of  RE-2C
(Involuntarily  separated   with   an   entry   level   separation   without
characterization of service) was assigned.
________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BMCR Medical Consultant states that during basic military training,  the
applicant was seen by the Behavioral Analysis Service clinical  psychologist
for difficulty adapting to  military  life.   He  completed  basic  military
training,  and  began  technical  training,   but   experienced   continuing
difficulty adapting to military service.  He went to the emergency  room  on
30 July 1999 complaining of mental and physical fatigue and  stated  he  was
“tired of Air Force games and contradictions.”  During  the  evaluation,  he
described symptoms of anxiety/panic attack (“describes hyperventilation  and
sense of impending doom”).  He was referred for mental health evaluation  on
2 August 1999, during  which  he  was  noted  to  report  difficulties  with
technical school, and expressed his desire to change career  fields.   In  a
memorandum dated 6  August  1999,  a  clinical  psychologist  concluded  his
Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood was so  severe  as
to prevent his ability to function effectively  in  a  military  environment
and recommended administrative discharge.

Adjustment Disorder is characterized by 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.  One of the key features of Adjustment Disorder  is
that the condition resolves with relief of the stressors.   Individuals  who
develop Adjustment Disorder due to 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 fact that the applicant  is  functioning  well  at  this  time  at  home
confirms his diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder, however it does  not  predict
that  he  will  respond  well  to  the  stresses  of  military   operations,
deployment, or combat when he is separated from  his  familiar  surroundings
and usual support system of family and  friends.   His  past  experience  is
predictive of an increased risk for recurrence of debilitating  anxiety  and
Adjustment Disorder  if  re-exposed  to  the  rigors  of  military  training
service.  The BCMR Medical Consultant indicated that action and  disposition
in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with  Air  Force
directives that implement the law.

Based on the above, the BCMR Medical Consultant is of the  opinion  that  no
change in the applicant’s record is warranted.  A complete copy of the  BCMR
Medical Consultant’s advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  on  4
February 2004 for review and response.  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 warranting  changes  to  the  applicant’s
reenlistment code and narrative  reason  for  his  separation.   The  record
clearly reveals that shortly after his entry on active duty,  the  applicant
experienced serious problems adjusting to military life.  While  it  may  be
true that he self-referred for counseling, this fact  does  not  render  the
ensuing actions by his commanders improper.  In this regard, we  agree  with
the assessment of the BCMR Medical Consultant and  adopt  his  rationale  as
the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the  victim  of
an error or injustice.  The applicant has provided no evidence  which  would
lead us to believe that the information  contained  in  the  discharge  case
file is erroneous, that he was not afforded all the rights to which  he  was
entitled, or that  his  commanders  abused  their  discretionary  authority.
Therefore, the applicant’s request that the reason for his  separation,  his
separation code, and his reenlistment  code  be  changed  is  not  favorably
considered.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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 22 April 2004 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
                       Mr. John B. Hennessey, Panel Member
                       Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Panel Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A:  DD Form 149, dated 13 Sep 03, with attachments.
      Exhibit B:  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C:  Letter, BCMR Med Consultant, dated 20 Jan 04.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Feb 04.




      ROBERT S. BOYD
      Panel Chair