RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-03242

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES 


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His narrative reason for separation of “Adjustment Disorder” be removed from his records.  

2.  His entry-level separation with uncharacterized service and Reentry (RE) code 2C (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service) be revised to allow him reentry into military service.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  His medical test and a psychologist have confirmed he does not have any conditions or disorders; however, he was erroneously diagnosed with a mental disorder consisting of stress and anxiety resulting in enuresis.  

2.  His urinary incontinence was exacerbated by over-hydrating during the day; therefore, he should not have been diagnosed with an adjustment disorder.  He has not experienced any further episodes of enuresis beyond those he experienced just three days prior to graduating from military basic military training (BMT).  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 Jan 12.  

On 23 Mar 12, the applicant was voluntarily evaluated through the Behavioral Analysis Service (BAS) for three recurring episodes of urinary incontinence.  He was diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder Not Otherwise Specified Rule-out Enuresis.  The applicant requested a waiver permitting retention in the military.  

On 2 Apr 12, the BAS psychologist denied the applicant’s waiver request due to his experiences of multiple episodes of urinary incontinence.  It was determined his mental health condition was so severe that his ability to function effectively in a military environment would be significantly impaired.  

On 3 Apr 12, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for a condition that interfered with his military service.  Specifically, for the diagnosis of a mental disorder by BAS, in which adversely impacted his training and prevented him from successfully completing the requirements of BMT.  

On 5 Apr 12, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action, consulted with legal counsel, and submited statements in his own behalf.  
 
On an undated letter, the discharge authority directed the applicant be furnished an Entry-Level Separation. 

On 6 Apr 12, the applicant was furnished an Entry-Level Separation with uncharacterized service, with a narrative reason for separation of “Adjustment Disorder” and an RE code of 2C.  He was credited with 2 months and 13 days of total active service.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and E.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AETC/SGPS recommends approval, indicating that based on documentation in the applicant’s record, his separation was carried out in accordance with established policy and administrative procedures; however, new testing and evaluation may support resolution of the applicant’s condition.  Their evaluation and recommendation was in regards to only the medical aspects of processing the applicant’s separation.  

A complete copy of the AETC/SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request for a RE code that would allow him to reenlist.  The separation authority directed the applicant be discharged under mental disorders with an entry-level separation.  Accordingly, the applicant received an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service for an adjustment disorder after 2 months and 13 days of active service.  As such, the RE code 2C is required in accordance with AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the USAF, based on the entry-level separation with uncharacterized service.  Also the applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice with respect to his RE code.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D.  

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating no evidence of an error or injustice was found in the processing of the applicant’s discharge.  Based on the documentation on file in the applicant’s master personnel records, the discharge, to include the character of service, narrative reason for separation, and separation code, was appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority.  Airmen are given entry-level separation with uncharacterized service when separation is initiated within the first 180 days of continuous service.  The Department of Defense (DoD) determined that it would be unfair to the Department or the member to characterize a member’s limited service when such service is less than 180 days.  In this case, the applicant indicated his urinary incontinence was exacerbated by over-hydrating during the day and he should be granted a waiver to continue his service.  However, BAS determined in view of the applicant’s recent history comprising multiple episodes of urinary incontinences absent identifiable organic etiology, his waiver request for retention should be denied.  Subsequently, he was processed for an entry-level separation since his commander initiated separation action prior to 180 days of continuous active military service.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant argues that the only time he should have been prevented from participating in his graduation was during the time he was experiencing enuresis.  Nevertheless, he completed all requirements for BMT graduation and it is unfair, and does not make any sense, to indicate that he has an adjustment disorder.  An assumption was made that he was stressed or severely impaired at a time when he was mentally in a great space preparing for graduation.  Based on the resolution offered by AETC/SGPS, he should be afforded the opportunity to reenlist and serve in the United States Air Force.  

A complete copy of the applicant’s response is at Exhibit G.  

________________________________________________________________

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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission, including his rebuttal response, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of AFPC/DPSOA and AFPC/DPSOR and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  While we note the comments of AETC/SGPS indicating new testing and evaluation may support resolution of the applicant’s condition, we are not convinced it would be appropriate to recommend granting the requested relief based on the medical documentation provided.  In this respect, we note that even though it seems the applicant no longer suffers from the effects of an adjustment disorder, the documentation provided is not sufficient for us to conclude that his condition would not resurface once subjected to the rigors of the military environment.  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.  

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  

________________________________________________________________

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-2013-03242 in Executive Session on 29 Apr 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member



The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-03242 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Jun 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 7 Aug 13.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 30 Oct 13.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 19 Nov 13.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Jan 14.
	Exhibit G.  Letters, Applicant, dated 30 Jan 14 and
	            22 Feb 14.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair
                                    
	

2