RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-05836
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His narrative reason for separation (Adjustment Disorder) be 
changed.

2.  His reentry (RE) code of “2C” (Involuntarily separated with 
an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without 
characterization of service) be changed to a code that would 
allow him to reenlist.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he entered basic military training (BMT) he was under 
stress due to family issues and not prepared for duty.  He was 
seen by a psychiatrist at the Behavioral Analysis Services (BAS) 
and was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder.  He indicated to 
the doctor that he previously had an anxiety attack due to a 
traumatic experience.  He believes this diagnosis to be 
inaccurate.  He thinks his discharge should be based on a 
failure to adapt to the military - rather than adjustment 
disorder with anxiety.  He further states that he desires to 
serve his country and reenlist.

In support of the applicant’s appeal he provides a copy of a 
certificate of compliance law enforcement officer from the state 
of Florida.

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

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 October 
2012.




The 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.  The specific reason 
for this action was the applicant’s diagnosis of having a mental 
disorder.  The 559th Medical Operations Squadron, Lackland AFB, 
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 applicant was advised of his rights in this matter and 
acknowledged receipt of the notification.  He waived his right 
to consult with counsel and waived his right to submit a 
statement on his own behalf.

The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and 
directed discharge.  The applicant was discharged on 19 October 
2012 with an uncharacterized, entry-level separation.  He served 
18 days on active duty.

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AETC/SGPS recommends denial.  SGPS states a review of the 
records provided and medical notes from Wilford Hall Medical 
Center (WHMC) reflect the applicant was seen in week one of 
training complaining of chest pain and anxiety.  During his 
evaluation for anxiety he stated he could not handle the 
environment in basic training, he was not eating, hands were 
shaking, and poor sleep.  He stated he was not motivated to 
remain in the military and expressed his desire to leave the 
military.  By his third week of training and after several 
visits to the clinic, the mental health provider recommended 
separation and stated the applicant understood the diagnoses and 
post service treatment plan.  Subsequently, he was processed for 
an entry level separation.  It is noted that the applicant 
admitted to withholding negative information on his MEPS 
examination and during his mental health interviews while in 
basic training.  His diagnosis was and still is disqualifying 
for military service.  Based on the documentation on file in the 
applicant’s records, the separation was done in accordance with 
established policy and administrative procedures.

The SGPS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  DPSOR states while the applicant 
was in medical hold for chest pain - he was referred to the BAS 
for the second time by medical for a mental health evaluation.  
The applicant complained of chest pain and increased anxiety.  
The applicant also stated his desire to leave the military due 
to increased anxiety and stress at home.  The applicant does not 
feel his diagnoses were accurate; however, the applicant’s 
adjustment problems in BMT included; increasing feeling of 
anxiety and being “on edge” with symptoms of muscle 
tremors/shakes, shortness of breath, heart racing, blurred 
vision, tingling sensations in his fingers, dizziness, and fears 
of losing control (these episodes were occurring several times 
daily, with duration of episodes lasting 5 to 10 minutes).

The applicant’s mental health evaluation stated the applicant 
needed medical attention for his anxiety spells several times 
during his first week of training.  The report also stated the 
combination of the applicant’s mental health disorder and low 
motivation would likely cause problems with his adaptation to 
military life and could become a liability to the USAF, it was 
recommended the applicant be discharged.

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, 
the uncharacterized character of service on his DD Form 214 is 
correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions.

Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel 
records, the discharge to include the narrative reason for 
separation and separation code was consistent with the 
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge 
instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge 
authority.  No evidence of an error or injustice was found in 
the processing of the applicant’s discharge.

The DPSOR complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial.  DPSOA states the RE code 2C is 
required based on the entry level separation with 
uncharacterized character of service and the applicant does not 
provide any evidence of an error or injustice in reference to 
his RE code.  

The DPSOA complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 3 May 2013, copies of the Air Force evaluations were 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 
30 days (Exhibit F).  As of this date, no response has been 
received by this office. 

________________________________________________________________
_




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.  After a 
thorough review of the evidence of record, it is our opinion 
that given the circumstances surrounding his separation from the 
Air Force, the narrative reason for separation and RE code 
assigned were proper and in compliance with the appropriate 
instructions.  In addition, the applicant has not provided any 
evidence which would lead us to believe that a change in his 
record to allow him to reenlist is warranted.  In the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting 
the relief sought in this application.  Therefore, we agree with 
the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their 
rationale 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 basis to recommend granting 
the relief sought in this application.

________________________________________________________________
_

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-2012-05836 in Executive Session on 24 October 2013, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:









The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-05836 was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 January 2013, w/atchs.
  Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
  Exhibit C.  Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 20 February 2013.
  Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 13 March 2013.
  Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 17 April 2013.
  Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 May 2013.





2


3