Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03272
Original file (BC-2006-03272.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03272
            INDEX CODE:  112.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  28 APR 08

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He desires to reenlist in the service.

In support of his request, the applicant provided medical documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant entered  active  duty  on  26  March  2003.   On  29  April  2003,
applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend  that  he
be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and  AFI
36-3208, chapter 5, section B, Involuntary Convenience  of  the  government,
paragraph  5.11,  Conditions   that   Interfere   with   Military   Service,
specifically paragraph 5.11.9, under Mental Disorders.  The specific  reason
for this action was he was diagnosed by the  Department  of  Mental  Health,
Wilford Hall Medical Center, as having a mental  disorder  as  contained  in
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV).  It  was
determined this condition interfered with duty performance and  conduct  and
was severe  enough  that  his  ability  to  function  in  the  military  was
significantly impaired.  The  specific  diagnosis  was  adjustment  disorder
with mixed anxiety and depressed mood.  He was  advised  of  his  rights  in
this matter and acknowledged receipt of the notification on that same  date.
 The applicant waived his right  to  consult  counsel  and  elected  not  to
submit statements on his own behalf.  In a legal review of  the  case  file,
the chief adverse actions found the case legally sufficient and  recommended
that he be separated with an entry-level separation.  On  1  May  2003,  the
discharge authority concurred with the recommendations and directed that  he
be discharged with an entry-level separation.  Applicant was  discharged  on
6 May 2003.  He served 1 month and 11 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  states  according  to  the   mental
evaluation, applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder  with  mixed
anxiety and depressed mood; not a personality disorder.   Corrective  action
has been taken to  correct  the  DD Form  214,  Certificate  of  Release  or
Discharge from Active Duty, to show a  separation  code  of  “JFF”  and  the
narrative  reason  to  read   “Secretarial   Authority.”    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.  Applicant did not submit any evidence or identify  any
errors  or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the  discharge  processing.   He
provided no facts warranting a change to his RE code.

Airman   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, his uncharacterized character  of  service  is  correct  and  in
accordance with DoD and Air Force instruction.

The DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 1 December 2006, the  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  for
review and comment within 30 days  (Exhibit  D).   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 an  error  or  injustice.   After  a  thorough  review  of  the
evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, it is  our  opinion  that
given the circumstances surrounding his separation from the Air  Force,  the
RE code assigned (2C) appears to  be  proper  and  in  compliance  with  the
appropriate directives.  The applicant has not provided any  evidence  which
would lead us to believe otherwise.  Therefore, we agree with the office  of
primary  responsibility  and  adopt  its  rational  as  the  basis  for  our
conclusion that the applicant has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or
injustice.  In  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice; the application  was  denied  without  a
personal appearance; and 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-2006-
03272 in Executive Session on 10 January 2007, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
                 Mr. Reginald P. Howard, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Oct 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 13 Nov 06.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Dec 06.





                       JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                       Panel Chair


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01424

    Original file (BC-2007-01424.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE recommends the requested relief be approved. DPPAE states based on the applicant’s reason for separation, relief should be granted in recoupment of the unearned portion of his bonus. After a thorough review of the applicant’s military personnel record and documentation provided in support of his appeal, we are not persuaded his SPD code should be changed to one that would not require the recoupment of the unearned portion of his IEB.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01320

    Original file (BC-2006-01320.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 12 Sep 05, the applicant received an uncharacterized entry-level separation, by reason of personality disorder and was issued an RE code of 2C. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing and he provided no other facts warranting a change to his RE code. HQ AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01725

    Original file (BC-2005-01725.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 8 Jul 03, the applicant was notified by her military training flight (MTF) commander she was recommending the applicant’s discharge from the Air Force for conditions that interfere with military service, mental disorders. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 16 Jun 06 for review and comment within 30 days. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02110

    Original file (BC-2005-02110.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02110 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 9 JAN 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from a “2C” to a “1C” and the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed from “Fraudulent” to “Erroneous” to allow him to reenlist in...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0102138

    Original file (0102138.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02138 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His entry level discharge be changed to an honorable discharge with medical conditions. The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied. DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02462

    Original file (BC-2006-02462.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02462 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 18 Feb 08 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her 2002 uncharacterized entry level separation (ELS) for personality disorder be changed to an honorable discharge [with a different narrative reason and separation...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02636

    Original file (BC-2004-02636.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    The MEB referred the applicant’s case to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 21 September 2005 for review and response within 30 days. Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 19 Sep 05.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2005-03826

    Original file (BC-2005-03826.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03826 INDEX CODE: 110.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 18 June 2007 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to one that will allow him to re-enter the military and that Item 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, of his DD Form...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | bc-2006-01182

    Original file (bc-2006-01182.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 10 July 1998, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force for conditions that interferes with military service. _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03334

    Original file (BC-2006-03334.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant was discharged on 25 Aug 99 with an honorable discharge with the narrative reason of Personality Disorder. On 20 Sep 06, the applicant’s counselor/psychotherapist again wrote that “she does not meet the criteria as having Schizoid Personality Disorder.” He did not provide any diagnosis. The preponderance of evidence of record shows that the applicant’s reason for separation was appropriately assigned at the time of separation, although a member with the same condition nine...