RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02262
            INDEX CODE:  100.06
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  23 Jan 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code on her DD Form 214  be  changed
so that she can enlist in the Air Force Reserve (USAFR).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her miscarriages caused a chemical imbalance.  She wants a  chance  to
prove she is an asset, not a hazard, to the Air Force.  She is willing
to do whatever it takes to be able to serve her country.   In  support
of  her  appeal,  she  provides  some  of  her  medical  entries,  her
vocational nursing diploma, and a statement  from  a  former  enlisted
member.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The following was extracted from the  applicant’s  available  military
personnel records  and  selective  medical  entries  provided  by  the
applicant.   The  applicant’s  military  medical  records   were   not
available.

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 14 May 97, and  was
assigned to the 15th Security Forces Squadron (15 SFS) at Hickam  AFB,
HI, as an installation entry controller/basic force protector.

On 25 Dec 97, she received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failing  to
report for duty or to be properly excused  from  duty  on  24 Dec  97,
causing the shift to be one  person  short  of  the  required  minimum
manning and degrading security.

On 19 Nov 98, applicant was notified  of  her  commander's  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment upon her for being asleep at her post as
a sentinel guarding an aircraft on the flight line at Hickam AFB,  HI,
on 17 Nov 98.   On  2 Dec  98,  after  consulting  with  counsel,  the
applicant waived her right to a trial by  court-martial,  requested  a
personal appearance and submitted a written  presentation.   Her  area
defense counsel (ADC) also provided a statement, arguing the applicant
was an excellent member, was remorseful of her misconduct, and that an
LOR would be more appropriate in this case.   On  2 Dec  98,  she  was
found guilty by her commander who imposed punishment in  the  form  of
forfeiture of $100 pay per month for two months and reduction from the
grade of airman first class (A1C) to airman, suspended until 1 Jun 99.
 The applicant did not appeal the  punishment.   The  Article  15  was
filed in her Unfavorable Information File (UIF) on 4 Dec 98.

On 28 Apr 99, the applicant’s suspended reduction was remitted.

On 4 Aug 99, the applicant received an LOR.  On  24 Jul  99,  she  had
been posted as the entry  controller  and  was  the  ranking  security
forces person on site.  During  her  eight-hour  shift,  the  Security
Response Team spent the entire shift  at  her  post  despite  specific
guidance  in  their  Special  Security  Instructions  that  they  were
required to conduct building checks on priority resources  located  at
the  top  of  the  site  and   perform   random   patrolling.    These
checks/patrols were never conducted and the applicant did  nothing  to
correct this or bring it to the attention of her superiors.

On 4 Aug 99, she presented at the Hickam AFB, HI, Mental Health Clinic
(MHC) on a “walk-in” basis after being referred by  a  chaplain.   Her
major stressors included two recent miscarriages (the last  one  being
early Jul 99); reported provocations by two  noncommissioned  officers
(NCOs) the few days before and the day she came over; and  feeling  as
though she could not arm-up/carry weapons  because  of  these  things.
Apparently the provocations from the NCOs over the previous three days
(insulting  her  regarding  her  emotional  reaction  to  the   recent
miscarriage and an alleged threat to draw a weapon on her on 4 Aug 99)
resulted in her feeling emotionally overwhelmed and  angry.   She  had
fantasies of using her own weapon on these NCOs and reported  she  was
concerned she might hurt someone.  She reported  nightmares,  loss  of
interest  and  energy,  guilt,  trouble  with  concentration,  anxious
feelings,  crying  spells  and   moodiness.    She   denied   suicidal
thoughts/plans.  She was restricted from weapons by her  unit  at  the
MHC’s recommendation and placed on a medical profile  restricting  her
from arming with weapons and  preventing  her  from  being  world-wide
qualified.

The applicant was seen regularly in the MHC for individual and women’s
group therapy sessions.

An 8 Dec 99 mental health entry reported that the applicant  had  made
superficial cuts on her arm the month before, that she and her husband
were interacting better, she was going to the gym regularly,  and  she
realized there  were  healthier  ways  to  express  her  feelings  and
frustrations.  Her ability to handle weapons was discussed.  Diagnosis
was Adjustment Disorder with grief, depression, and  work  inhibition,
resolving.  In a mental health entry, dated  9 Dec  99,  she  reported
feeling comfortable arming and that she would  be  dependable  if  she
were deployed; whereas in Aug 99 she did not feel confident  with  her
weapon because of her grief over her miscarriage.  She  now  felt  her
concentration and mental stability were intact, and the only  way  she
would pull her weapon would be out  of  fear  not  anger.   She  still
desired to cross-train.  She was judged to be mentally stable, able to
carry a weapon, and responsible.  The Mental  Health  Services  Flight
(MHSF) commander recommended lifting  her  restriction  from  carrying
weapons and changing her profile.

The applicant continued participating in individual and group  therapy
sessions.

However, on 5 Jan 00, she came to the clinic as a “walk-in,” tearfully
explaining she was too scared/anxious to return to carrying a  weapon.
She was having nightmares, anxiety, and did not feel she would be safe
with a weapon.  She felt very pessimistic she  could  ever  return  to
full duty status.    The  MHSF  commander  agreed  to  ask  the  First
Sergeant to give the applicant more time to “ease” into arming-up.

On 11 Jan 00, the applicant reiterated that she still felt significant
fear and anxiety  associated  with  arming  up.   The  MHSF  commander
discussed that the applicant might have developed a phobia due to  the
night she was, reportedly, threatened by the NCO, and also due to  her
miscarriage.  The applicant felt sure that the chances  of  her  being
able to arm-up again were very low.  The MHSF commander contacted  the
applicant’s  commander  to  recommend  administrative  separation  and
changed her profile so that she was restricted from  weapons  and  not
world-wide qualified.

In a 7 Feb 00 Mental Health Evaluation to the 15  SFS  commander,  the
MHSF commander  diagnosed  the  applicant  with  Adjustment  Disorder,
unspecified, with grief, depression, anxiety and work inhibition,  and
possible specific phobia (weapons).  The  MHSF  commander  opined  the
applicant’s Adjustment Disorder was severe enough that her ability  to
function effectively in the  military  environment  was  significantly
impaired.  Even if the applicant wanted to cross-train at this  point,
she would not be eligible because she had  not  been  able  to  become
fully qualified again in her current career field.

A 24 Feb 00 medical entry  reported  the  applicant  was  seven  weeks
pregnant and she indicated her health was good, she was ready for  the
child, and her mental health was stable.

On 24 Feb 00, the applicant was notified of her commander’s intent  to
recommend an honorable discharge for conditions  that  interfere  with
military service, specifically mental disorders.  The commander  cited
the 7 Feb 00 Mental Health Evaluation and  diagnosis.   The  applicant
consulted counsel and did not submit matters for  consideration.   The
15 SFS commander recommended the applicant’s honorable  discharge  for
the reasons indicated  in  the  Notification  Letter.   Probation  and
rehabilitation (P&R) were not recommended as the commander felt it was
in the best interests of the Air Force and the applicant that  she  be
administratively separated.

Legal review on  2 Mar  00  found  the  case  legally  sufficient  and
recommended honorable discharge without P&R.  The discharge  authority
approved the applicant’s honorable discharge without P&R.

The applicant was honorably discharged on 14 Mar 00, in the  grade  of
A1C, after 2 years, 10 months, and 1 day of active service.   She  was
issued an RE code of 2C (Involuntarily  separated  with  an  honorable
discharge), a separation program designator (SPD) code of JFX,  and  a
narrative reason of “Personality Disorder.”

On 27 Dec 05, HQ AFPC/DPPRSP informed the applicant that  her  DD Form
214 had been reaccomplished to reflect an SPD code/narrative reason of
“JFF/Secretarial Authority,” rather than  “JFX/Personality  Disorder,”
because she had not been diagnosed with a Personality Disorder.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPAE  finds  no  evidence  of  injustice  or   error.    The
applicant’s commander provided numerous opportunities for her to  come
to terms and deal with her situation/condition.  However, after  eight
months and upon recommendation from military medical authorities,  the
commander  formally   recommended   the   applicant’s   administrative
separation due  to  her  inability  to  function  effectively  in  the
military environment.  If the applicant is allowed to  change  her  RE
code and enter the USAFR as a nurse, the  service  may  not  be  fully
aware of the conditions (past fear to arm up) that contributed to  and
resulted in the applicant’s previous discharge.  Therefore, denial  is
recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial, contending the applicant’s  discharge
was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the
discharge regulation and within the discharge authority’s  discretion.
The applicant submitted no evidence or
identified any errors or injustices that  occurred  in  the  discharge
processing.   She  provided  no  facts  warranting  a  change  to  her
reenlistment code.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 30 Dec 05 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 not timely filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

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 should be changed to  allow  enlistment  in  the
USAFR.  The applicant’s contentions were considered;  however,  we  do
not find  these  uncorroborated  assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,
sufficiently persuasive to override the available military records and
the rationale provided by the Air Force.  The applicant’s claim that a
“chemical imbalance” caused by her miscarriages provoked her  problems
is duly noted.  However, while the record is clear that  she  had  two
miscarriages, the available medical documentation also indicates that,
despite treatment and  counseling,  she  had  an  Adjustment  Disorder
severe  enough  to  significantly  impair  her  ability  to   function
effectively in the military environment.  Her apparent fear of  arming
up and tendency to inflict superficial cuts on herself  when  stressed
or frustrated while in the service concerns us that her symptoms might
return if she was again exposed to the rigors of military life.   This
is an unacceptable risk to both the applicant and the Air  Force.   We
congratulate her on earning her  diploma  in  vocational  nursing  and
encourage her in her civilian endeavors.  Nevertheless,  she  has  not
shown that her discharge, which drove her RE code,  was  erroneous  or
unwarranted.  We therefore agree with the recommendations of  the  Air
Force 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 changing the applicant’s records  beyond
that already administratively accomplished.

_________________________________________________________________

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 15 February 2006 under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member
                 Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-02262 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Jul 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Available Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 13 Dec 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 21 Dec 05.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Dec 05.





                                   KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                   Panel Chair