RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05610

	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her narrative reason for separation of adjustment disorder and 
its corresponding separation code of “JFY,” be changed to a 
medical separation.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her separation code is incorrect and her reason for separation 
is abbreviated and ambiguous, which is preventing her from 
receiving her full Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement; copies of her discharge correspondence; DD Form 214, 
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued in 
conjunction with her 7 May 08 discharge, and a letter from the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), dated 4 Jun 10.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 29 Aug 06, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in 
the grade of airman basic (E-1/AB).  

On 7 May 08, the applicant was honorably discharged, with a 
reason for separation of adjustment disorder.  She was credited 
with one year, eight months and nine days of active duty 
service.  

________________________________________________________________



THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, stating, in part, that based on 
the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the 
discharge to include the narrative reason for separation and the 
separation code was consistent with the procedural and 
substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was 
within the discretion of the discharge authority.  DPSOR found 
no evidence of an error or injustice in the processing of the 
applicant's discharge.

The applicant was initially seen at the Base Mental Health 
Clinic on 09 Jan 08 for an assessment regarding an Adjustment 
Disorder, with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood.  She 
voluntarily participated in therapy and received support from 
Family Advocacy.  The applicant has Axis I disorders that were 
significantly impeding her ability to function in the military 
environment.  In accordance with AFI 36-3208, Administrative 
Separation of Airmen, para 5.11.9.1 and the medical professional 
opinion, the applicant's adjustment disorder was so severe that 
her ability to function effectively in the military environment 
was significantly impaired.  

The applicant requested administrative separation under AFI 36-
3208, Para 5.11.9.1.  It was recommended that she continue 
receiving services from Mental Health and Family Advocacy until 
her separation.  The medical evaluation indicates the applicant 
was not suitable for retention in the Air Force and should have 
been separated.

DPSOR noted the applicant’s apparent success and that she was 
coping well in her civilian capacity; however, her success in 
her civilian life does not change the basis for which she was 
discharged from the Air Force.  The military environment is 
unique and stressors encountered in such an environment may not 
appear or surface when removed from the military environment.

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

She states that her request for correction of her DD Form 
214 and change of her administrative discharge to a medical 
discharge is necessary due to her not receiving benefits for 
which she is entitled as a disabled veteran.  Her disabilities, 
both of which were incurred while in the military (Exercise 
induced Asthma and Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and 
Depressed Mood), were proven to be service connected.  So, based 
upon that fact, she is eligible for 100 percent of her veteran's 
benefits.  Also, she is a full-time student and she is not 
receiving her full GI Bill entitlement as a result of improper 
wording on her DD Form 214.  The separation code which should 
appear does not and the narrative reason information is 
abbreviated and should include her full diagnoses.

The advisory opinion recommends denial as a result of 
inappropriate behavior on her part; however, this could not be 
further from the truth as she received neither verbal nor 
written reprimands from any of her superiors during her time 
served on active duty.

The letter also states that she was given multiple opportunities 
to correct her behavior which is also incorrect.

She was experiencing such extenuating circumstances that she 
feared that she would eventually adversely affect the mission. 
Furthermore, the initial request for separation was made by her 
based on the fact that she had begun suffering from extreme 
sleep deprivation, extreme exhaustion and anxiety, which led her 
to seek medical treatment on her own.  She is not guilty of any 
or exhibited any inappropriate behavior and was never counseled 
by any of her superiors and thus, could not have been given an 
opportunity to correct her behavior that she was not made aware 
was an issue.

Despite her personal challenges, she still managed to arrive at 
work on time in the proper uniform, did her job well, and 
maintained military bearing at all times until her last day as a 
member of the Air Force.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  

The BCMR Medical Consultant notes the applicant served in the 
active duty Air Force for about 20 months.  From the 
documentation supplied, the Medical Consultant can determine 
that the applicant was seen and treated at the Base Mental 
Health Clinic and diagnosed with Axis I Disorders (Adjustment 
Disorder with Anxiety and Depressed Mood).  In her provider’s 
professional medical opinion, the applicant's adjustment 
disorder was so severe that her ability to function effectively 
in the military environment was significantly impaired.  This 
medical evaluation indicated that the applicant was not suitable 
for retention in the Air Force and she was administratively 
separated.  Based on the documentation provided, the narrative 
reason for separation and separation code were consistent with 
the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge 
instruction and the discharge authority.

In addressing the applicant's implicit desire for a medical 
separation, the Military Disability Evaluation System (MDES), 
established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by 
law, under Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), only offer 
compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries 
which specifically rendered a member unfit for continued active 
service and were the cause for career termination; and then only 
to the degree of impairment present at the time of separation 
and not based on future occurrences.  

Based upon the supplied service medical evidence, the Medical 
Consultant found no medical condition that established, [or 
should have], a cause and effect relationship with the 
termination of the applicant's service or as an alternative 
reason for her release from military service.  Although the 
applicant was evaluated and treated for episodic illnesses 
during her military service, none were shown to have interfered 
with her military service to the extent or duration that 
warranted placement on Medical Hold for a Medical Evaluation 
Board (MEB) and processing through the MDES.

On the other hand, operating under a different set of laws 
(Title 38, U.S. C.), with a different purpose, the DVA is 
authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition 
determined service incurred, without regard to [and independent 
of] its demonstrated or proven impact upon a service member's 
retainability, fitness to serve, narrative reason for 
separation, or the intervening or transpired period since the 
date of separation.  With this in mind, Title 38, U.S.C., which 
governs the DVA compensation system, was written to allow 
awarding compensation ratings for conditions that were not 
unfitting for military service. This is the reason why an 
individual can be found fit for release from military service 
and yet sometime thereafter receive a compensation rating from 
the DVA for service-connected, but militarily non-unfitting 
conditions.  The DVA is also empowered to conduct periodic re-
evaluations for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating 
awards (increase or decrease) as the level of impairment from a 
given service connected medical condition may vary (improve or 
worsen, affecting future employability) over the lifetime of the 
veteran.  The DVA is the agency chartered by Congress to provide 
assistance to all eligible veterans.  

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 10 Sep 13 for review and comment within 30 days.  
As of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit G).

________________________________________________________________

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.  The 
applicant’s case has undergone an exhaustive review by the Air 
Force Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) and the BCMR 
Medical Consultant and we do not find the evidence provided 
sufficient to overcome their assessment of the case.  As such, 
we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force 
OPR and the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as 
the basis for our decision that the applicant has not been the 
victim of an error or injustice.  In addition, we note the 
applicant refutes statements in the OPR’s evaluation that states 
that she was counseled for inappropriate behavior and given 
opportunities to correct her behavior; however, these statements 
were not a factor in coming to our decision.  Therefore, in view 
of the above and 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 material 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-2012-05610 in Executive Session on 7 Nov 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Nov 12, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 4 Mar 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Mar 13.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Apr 13, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, 
                dated 24 Mar 13.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 10 Sep 13.




                                   Panel Chair
2