RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02576
INDEX NUMBER: 100.06, 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow her to reenter
the Air Force.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The narrative reason for separation, “Personality Disorder,” on her DD Form
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge, is incorrect. All supporting
documents from her discharge state the discharge was due to a cyst on her
ovary, not personality disorder. She was not aware this reason for
discharge was going to be put on her discharge paperwork.
In support of her appeal, she provided a personal statement, a resume, her
DD Form 214, copies of emergency care/treatment records from Wilford Hall
Medical Center (WHMC), and civilian medical reports.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 25 Nov 02, for a period
of four years in the grade of airman basic.
During applicant’s first week of BMT, she experienced severe abdominal pain
and was treated at WHMC. An evaluation by the emergency room physician
determined the likely cause of her pain was an ovarian cyst. She was
treated with analgesic medicine (Motrin) and released. The next morning
she returned to the emergency room for pain and was treated with an
injection of medicine similar to motrin. The treating emergency room
physician referred her to mental health for unspecified reasons.
The Mental Health Evaluation, dated 3 Dec 02, diagnosed Axis I: Adjustment
Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood, and Axis III: Recurrent
abdominal pain thought secondary to ovarian cysts. The applicant was
returned to duty and was recommended for expeditious administrative
separation due to her failure to adapt to the military environment and lack
of aptitude for military service.
On 6 Dec 02, the squadron commander notified the applicant that he was
recommending she be discharged for a condition that interfered with
military service, specifically for mental disorders. It was determined
this condition interfered with her duty performance and conduct and was
severe enough that her ability to function in the military was
significantly impaired. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the
notification on 6 Dec 02, and waived her option to consult legal counsel
and submit statements on her own behalf.
The Deputy Chief, Adverse Actions found the case file legally sufficient
and recommended the applicant be separated from the service with an entry-
level separation.
On 13 Dec 02, applicant received an uncharacterized entry-level separation,
by reason of “Personality Disorder,” and was issued an RE Code of 2C
(involuntarily separated with an uncharacterized entry level separation).
Applicant served 19 days on active duty.
On 20 Feb 04, applicant’s DD Form 214 was administratively
corrected/reissued reflecting the narrative reason for separation (Item 28)
as “Secretarial Authority.”
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Consultant stated that the applicant was not discharged
due to her ovarian cyst (although recurrent disabling pain due to this
condition is disqualifying for entry). She was discharged for
unsuitability due to adjustment disorder and inability to adapt to the
stresses of military service.
Since the applicant was not diagnosed with a personality disorder and was
further not noted to demonstrate maladaptive traits or misconduct
suggestive of a personality disorder, it is inaccurate to list the
narrative reason as personality disorder, even though administratively it
is correct. Therefore, the Medical Consultant is of the opinion that the
narrative reason for discharge should be changed to Secretarial Authority,
but no change in reenlistment code is warranted.
A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.
HQ AFPC/DPPRSP recommends denial stating, in part, based on the
documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the
discharge regulation. The discharge was within the discretion of the
discharge authority. Airmen are given entry-level
separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is
initiated in the first 180 days continuous active service. The Department
of Defense (DoD) determined if a member served less than 180 days
continuous active service, it would be unfair to the member and the service
to characterize their limited service. Therefore, her uncharacterized
character of service is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force
instructions. An entry-level/uncharacterized separation should not be
viewed as negative and should not be confused with other types of
separation.
A complete copy of AFPC/DPPRSP evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 27 February 2004, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to
the applicant for review and response within 30 days. As of this date, no
response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________
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. At the time a member is separated from
the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of
their service and the circumstances of their separation. The assigned code
reflects the Air Force’s position regarding whether or not, or under what
circumstances, the individual should be allowed to reenlist. After careful
consideration of the evidence provided, we find no evidence of error in
this case and do not believe she has suffered from an injustice.
Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon
which to favorably consider 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 issues 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 Docket Number BC-2003-02576
in Executive Session on 24 June 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Jul 03, w/atchs
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records
Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Med Consultant, dated 27 Jan 04
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 24 Feb 04
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Feb 04
LAURENCE M. GRONER
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00315
The MEB referred her case to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). He opines she likely did have somatoform disorder at the time prior to discharge. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In her response dated 30 Aug 07, the applicant states there were many physical symptoms she complained about in the military and she went to...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01521
The applicant’s EPRs prior to this referral report received the highest overall recommendation of “5.” An Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) convened on 7 Mar 97 and recommended the applicant be placed on the Temporary Disability Retirement List (TDRL) with a 30% rating for pain disorder associated with general medical condition, mechanical low back pain, definite industrial impairment. Since the applicant had previously held the higher grade of SRA from 26 Dec 94 to 19 Dec 96, his...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01490
During the medical evaluation it was determined that past medical history included “occasional right knee pain prior to enlistment for two - three years.” She was diagnosed with patellofemoral pain syndrome, placed on limited duty (no physical conditioning or running) for 10 days and prescribed Motrin. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02678
On 7 Mar 03, she was placed on a deferment due to a medical condition; as a result, the Feb 03 weight was excused. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant asserts the medical deferment expired in Jun 03 without a firm diagnosis being given. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Dec 04.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01570
On 22 Jan 99 he was referred to WHMC for a medical evaluation for symptoms consistent with a bipolar-like illness and personality disorder. Discharge and continued mood stabilizer medication were recommended. Based on the Consultant’s recommendation and the evidence of record, we are not convinced it would be in the best interests of the Air Force or the applicant to allow him to reenlist.
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501484
960102: ACB-Medical Department: Right ankle pain ? If pain persist > 2 days would have patient follow up at OB/GYN for u/s eval. P: Motrin with food for pain.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01337
On 21 Aug 03, the applicant requested a letter stating her diagnosis of insulin resistance and its effects on her weight. At the time the action was taken against her she was undergoing tests for insulin resistance, five years after she told medical personnel she suspected something was wrong because she could not lose weight. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 3 February...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-00545
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00545 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The 40 percent disability retirement rating she received be increased. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends the record be changed to reflect the applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03083
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03083 INDEX CODE: 100.03, 100.06, 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed that he be discharged with service characterized as uncharacterized. Rather, as was noted by the Air Force office or primary responsibility,...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01666
The disability was rated at 10%. The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 19 December 2003 for review and response within 30 days. We have reviewed her DVA rating decisions and find no evidence she was not properly rated at the time of her separation from the Air Force.