RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

      IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02745
            INDEX CODE: 112.10
      XXXXXXX                     COUNSEL:  NO
                                   HEARING DESIRED:  NO

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  separation  program  designator  (SPD)  code  of   "JFX"   (Personality
Disorder) and his reentry code of  "2C"  (Involuntarily  separated  with  an
honorable discharge; or entry level separation without  characterization  of
service) on his DD Form  214,  Certificate  of  Release  or  Discharge  from
Active Duty be changed so he can return  to  the  New  Jersey  Air  National
Guard.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was seen by a psychologist  once  for  10  minutes  4  days  before  his
separation from Basic Military Training (BMT).   This  happened  after  his
condition worsened and he was unable to perform his duties.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 214.

His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from the Military Personnel  Data  System  (MilPDS)  reflects
that on 6 September 2006, he enlisted in the Air National Guard.

On 22 September 2006, he was discharged from the  ANG  with  an  entry-level
separation  for  termination  of  initial  active  duty  training.   He  was
discharged with uncharacterized service.

He served 17 days on active duty.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1POFM recommends denial.  A1POFM states the applicant was returned  to
the state of New Jersey from BMT.  He was evaluated  by  qualified  medical
personnel at Wilford Hall Medical Center and found unable to continue  BMT.
He was unable to manage the psychological stress related with the  training
environment that is intended to test trainees  and  prepare  them  for  the
future stress incurred with  military  service.   If  he  were  allowed  to
continue in an active status, he could obviously pose a danger  to  himself
or others.  The main purpose of the  RE  and  SPD  codes  are  to  identify
individuals that should not be considered for continued military service.

The complete A1POFM evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

NGB/A1PS concurs with A1POFM and recommends denial of relief.  A1PS  states
according to the subject matter expert (SME), the  applicant  was  returned
from BMT due to the inability to manage the  psychological  stress  related
with the training environment that is intended to test trainees and prepare
them for the future stress incurred with military service.

The complete A1PS evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant  on  11
January 2008 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date,  this
office has received no response (Exhibit D).

________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant  recommends  denial.   The  Medical  Consultant
states provisions are made to separate a service member with an entry level
separation, with an uncharacterized service characterization, when,  as  in
the case under review, there has been a demonstrated inability to  complete
training or to perform his or her military duties,  identified  within  the
first 180 days of  military  service,  due  to  a  variety  of  "unsuiting"
conditions, not  considered  disabilities,  that  interfere  with  military
service.  This includes, but is not limited to, a character and  behavioral
disorder that is found to be so severe as to  interfere  with  the  service
member's ability to perform  their  military  duties.   The  applicant  has
reportedly demonstrated such difficulty managing the "psychological  stress
related to his training environment,” such that it was determined that  his
retention could "pose a danger  to  himself  or  others."   Addressing  his
fitness to serve, appellate review  boards  are  often  asked  to  place  a
service member's motivation or demonstrated ability to serve in a safe,  or
familiar garrison environment, above any health or safety risk imposed by a
particular medical condition.   In  the  case  under  review,  and  with  a
presumption of regularity in the establishment of the reason for separating
him, he remains vulnerable for experiencing a recurrence of his  previously
demonstrated pattern of behavior, if confronted again  with  the  stressors
associated with military service.  This includes  operating  in  unfamiliar
austere operational  environments.   The   Medical  Consultant  finds  this
concern particularly important  in  the  context  of  the  unrelenting  and
unpredictable stressors confronting all military members of today's Air and
Space Expeditionary Force; with a mission that relies more than ever before
upon our Reserve component and Guard forces.

Addressing the potential fallout from his separation code, the BCMR Medical
Consultant acknowledges that the "JFX" code assigned to  him  represents  a
personality  disorder;  and  its  likely  impact  upon   his   social   and
occupational  pursuits.   Therefore,  if  indeed  his   medical   narrative
indicates that he has an adjustment disorder instead, then separation  code
"JFY" would be more appropriate.  It is not known, with the lack of medical
records, which is his actual diagnosis.  The Medical  Consultant  otherwise
recommends a denial of his request for a change in the narrative reason for
separation and denial for a change in the reentry code.

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant  on  10
June 2008 for review and comment within 30 days.  As  of  this  date,  this
office has received no response (Exhibit F).

________________________________________________________________

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  to  warrant  correcting  his  SPD  and
reentry codes.  We took notice of the  applicant's  complete  submission  in
judging the merits  of  the  case,  however,  due  to  the  limited  records
available and based upon the presumption of regularity  in  the  conduct  of
governmental affairs, we must assume  that  the  applicant's  discharge  was
proper and in compliance with appropriate directives.  We find  no  evidence
of error or injustice in the  available  records  and  without  evidence  to
support the applicant's appeal, we find no basis  upon  which  to  favorably
consider  this  application.   Therefore,  in  view  of  the  foregoing,  we
conclude that no basis exists upon which to recommend  favorable  action  on
his request.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did  not  demonstrate
the existence of 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-2007-02745
in Executive Session on 16 July 2008 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Steven A. Cantrell, Member
                 Mr. Kurt R. LaFrance, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 August 2007, w/atchs.
  Exhibit B.  Letter, NGB/A1POFM, dated 22 October 2007.
  Exhibit C.  Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 18 December 2007.
  Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 January 2008.
  Exhibit E.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 22 May 2008.
  Exhibit F.  Letter, Counsel, dated 10 June 2008.




            JAY H. JORDAN
            Panel Chair