RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00960
            INDEX CODE:  100.06, 110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  23 Sep 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code, separation program  designator
(SPD) code, and narrative reason for discharge be changed so  she  may
join the New York Air National Guard (NYANG).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was  unaware  of  what  was  entailed  in  a  surgical  technician
position.  She told her instructors she was unhappy and wanted to stay
in the Air Force but in a different job.  She  could  not  handle  the
surgical aspects because she was reminded of a personal trauma in  her
past.  She was told her  RE  and  SPD  codes  would  not  affect  her;
however, they prevent her from enlisting in  the  Guard  or  Reserves.
She anticipates earning her Associate’s Degree in  Mental  Health  and
Human Services in Jul 06 and wants a second chance  as  an  Air  Force
member.

The  applicant  provides  an  undated,  unsigned  statement  from   an
individual she contends was her former supervisor, as  well  as  three
character references. Her complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, with some college and working experience as  a  medical
receptionist, enlisted in the Regular Air Force  on  6 Apr  04  for  a
period of four years.

After basic training, the applicant selected the Air  Force  Specialty
Code (AFSC) Surgical Service Apprentice and was assigned  to  Sheppard
AFB for Surgical Service  Phase  I  training.   She  was  subsequently
assigned to Andrews AFB on 2 Aug 04 to complete Phase II.

Student Records of Academic/Nonacademic Counseling  &  Comments  (AETC
Form 173) for the period  5-12  Aug  04  indicate  the  applicant  had
expressed anxiety about seeing a lot of blood.  She  claimed  she  had
told her instructors at Sheppard AFB during Phase I that she  did  not
want to do this job; however, she “stuck  with  it.”   The  supervisor
reported the applicant ducked her head continuously  and  made  child-
like  noises  when  observing  operating  room  procedures.   Although
encouraged to continue with her training, the applicant stated she did
not want to be a Surgical Service Apprentice and could not  stand  the
sight of blood.  The supervisor noted the applicant’s comments on  her
Personal Information Sheet, which stated she had  24  nursing  credits
and her goal was  to  become  a  midwife  or  doctor.   The  applicant
responded that she had  changed  her  mind.   The  supervisor  offered
counseling and tried to persuade the applicant to  continue  with  her
training.  The applicant then stated she always knew that she did  not
want this job and she had so advised her instructors at Sheppard  AFB.
The supervisor discovered that the applicant had been offered a  real-
life viewing of surgery at  Sheppard  but  had  declined  due  to  her
civilian experience and had done very well in Phase I.  The  applicant
finally indicated she did not want to remain in the Air Force  if  she
could not choose another AFSC.

On 12 Aug 04, the applicant was placed on ineffective status and would
not participate in any further Surgical Service Phase II training.   A
statement  from  another  Surgical  Service  Apprentice  reported  the
applicant frequently remarked that she felt she had made a mistake  in
joining the Air Force and expressed her fear of blood.

On 16 Aug 04, in a Memo for the Record, the  applicant  indicated  she
wanted to separate and return to college by 2 Sep 04.  On  17 Aug  04,
the Sheppard AFB Surgical Service Apprentice Course supervisor did not
recommend the applicant for reclassification.

According to AETC Form 125A, Record of Administrative Training Action,
dated  26  Aug  04,  the  course  medical  director  recommended   the
applicant’s  disenrollment  without  further  technical  training  for
unsuitability.  He also did not recommend retention in the Air  Force,
noting  the  applicant’s  multiple  inconsistencies  relating  to  the
details, circumstances, and timeliness of her decision to  discontinue
her training.  On  8 Sep  04,  the  commander  concurred,  noting  the
applicant’s inconsistencies with respect to her fear of blood, lack of
desire to become a surgical technologist, and stated goal to become  a
midwife.

A mental health evaluation, dated 3 Jan 05,  indicated  the  applicant
had volunteered to be evaluated in  the  Life  Skills  Support  Center
after experiencing difficulty functioning as  a  surgical  technician,
Phase II student.  The applicant stated the sight of  blood  triggered
flashbacks to a personal traumatic  event  when  she  saw  significant
amounts of her own blood and felt close to death.  The  diagnosis  was
Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood.  The psychiatrist  found  the
disorder so severe that the applicant’s ability  to  function  in  any
medical AFSC was significantly impaired and mission readiness could be
compromised  when  deployed.   The  level  of  dysfunction   warranted
separation.

On 20 Jan 05, the applicant was notified of her commander’s intent  to
recommend honorable discharge  based  on  the  3 Jan  05  Life  Skills
Support Center evaluation diagnosing her with Adjustment Disorder with
Depressed Mood.  The applicant acknowledged receipt and, on 25 Jan 05,
her commander recommended her for  discharge,  without  probation  and
rehabilitation (P&R).  The commander  noted  that  employment  in  any
medical AFSC brought the increased chance of contact with blood, which
exacerbated the applicant’s disorder, and employment in a  non-medical
AFSC did not guarantee  she  would  not  be  exposed  to  blood.   The
applicant consulted counsel and waived her right to submit statements.

On  28 Jan  05,  the  discharge  authority  directed  the  applicant’s
honorable  discharge  for  Conditions  that  Interfere  with  Military
Service, Mental Disorders, without P&R.

The applicant was honorably discharged in  the  grade  of  airman,  on
7 Feb 05, after ten (10) months and two (2) days of active duty.   She
was issued an RE code of 2C (involuntarily separated with an honorable
discharge or an entry level separation), and an SPD code of JFX, which
correlates  to  a  narrative  reason  of  discharge  for   Personality
Disorder.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  AFBCMR  Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial.   He  notes  the
applicant had previously enlisted in the Air  Force  Reserve  and  was
discharged on 23 May 02, apparently for refusing to enlist.  Also, she
was administratively separated from  the  Navy  with  an  entry  level
separation for “apathy/personal problem” after ten (10)  days  in  the
delayed  entry  program  (DEP).   Unsuiting  conditions   subject   to
administrative discharge include but are  not  limited  to  Adjustment
Disorders, Personality Disorders, Specific Phobias  (especially  those
that interfere with duty), and other  mental  disorders  that  do  not
warrant referral into the AF Disability Evaluation System  (DES).  The
psychological features of flashbacks to a prior trauma, along with the
Navy discharge for “apathy/personal problem” are additional indicators
of unacceptable risk for recurrent problems.  Functioning well without
symptoms at this  time  while  at  home  does  not  predict  that  her
condition will not be triggered again by the  changing  and  stressful
military environment.  Though motivated to serve, her past  experience
is indicative of an increased risk for unpredictable  recurrence  that
is unacceptable for military service.

[Note:  Although  the  AFBCMR  Medical  Consultant  indicates   airmen
discharged with an Entry Level Separation (ELS)  receive  an  RE  code
that bars reenlistment (page 2, para. 3), the applicant was not  given
an ELS but was honorably discharged for Personality Disorder.]

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  applicant  provided  two  responses.    She   contends   surgical
technology was not her first choice but there were few options and she
could not be accepted into the security  forces  AFSC.   She  provides
details about her personal traumatic experience  at  age  19  and  her
previous enlistments with the Air Force Reserve  and  the  Navy.   She
claims she was under pressure and stress because  of  the  unfair  and
unreasonable treatment by the  personnel  at  Andrews  AFB.   She  has
overcome  her  fear.   Her  second  response  forwarded  two  unsigned
character references.

Complete copies of the applicant’s responses, with attachments, are at
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.  After a thorough review  of  the
evidence  of  record  and  the  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded her RE code, SPD code, and narrative  reason  for  discharge
should be  changed.   The  applicant’s  contentions  are  duly  noted;
however, we do not  find  these  assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,
sufficiently persuasive to override  the  rationale  provided  by  the
AFBCMR Medical Consultant.  The applicant’s Adjustment Disorder places
her, and the Air Force, at an unacceptable risk for  a  recurrence  of
her symptoms should she be exposed again to the changing and stressful
environment of military service, operations,  deployment,  or  combat.
We therefore agree with the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s recommendation
and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our  decision  that
the applicant has not sustained her burden of having  suffered  either
an error or an injustice.  In view of the above and absent  persuasive
evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 21 June 2006 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
                 Ms. Debra K. Walker, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-00960 was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Feb 05, w/atchs.
  Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
  Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 10 May 06.
  Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 May 06.
  Exhibit E.  Letters, Applicant, dated 13 & 31 May 06, w/atchs.




                                   B. J. WHITE-OLSON
                                   Panel Chair