RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05794

			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  YES 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect his reenlistment eligibility 
status as Eligible rather than Ineligible to allow him to 
reenlist.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His reenlistment status is erroneous.  Throughout his military 
career he has never requested to be seen or sought care from a 
mental health provider, or received counseling or punishment for 
any disciplinary infraction.  He was never prescribed or taken any 
medication for a mental health condition.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 13 Jul 02, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the Air 
Force Reserve.

On 5 Oct 03, the applicant’s commander notified him he was 
referring him for a mental health evaluation and on that date the 
applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification.

On 9 Oct 03, the applicant underwent a commander directed 
evaluation at the Life Skills Clinic for a determination of 
fitness for continued military service.  The applicant was 
diagnosed with a Delusional Disorder, persecutory type and 
antisocial personality traits.  The evaluation further noted the 
presence of a psychiatric disorder that would warrant a medical 
evaluation board (MEB), however, it existed prior to service.

On 29 Dec 03, the applicant’s commander recommended the applicant 
be involuntarily discharged from the Air Force Reserve for a 
condition that interfered with his military service.  The specific 
reason for the discharge action was the applicant’s diagnosis of 
Delusional Disorder, persecutory type and antisocial personality 
traits.  The psychiatrist noted the applicant’s condition as being 
so severe that his ability to function effectively in a military 
environment was significantly impaired and that he was unsuited 
for further military service.  In the notification for discharge, 
the commander cited the following derogatory information:  the 
applicant received three Letters of Reprimand (LOR) for 
dereliction of duty, being disrespectful to a commissioned 
officer, failure to meet training standards and dereliction of 
duty, Unfavorable Information File (UIF), and two Memorandums For 
Record (MFR).  

On 13 Nov 03, the applicant was directed not to attend Unit 
Training Assemblies (UTA), Annual Tour, or to perform duty in any 
other pay and/or point status pending resolution of the discharge 
action.

On 4 Jun 04, the legal office reviewed the case and found it 
legally sufficient to support separation and recommended the case 
be forwarded to the discharge authority for action.

On 9 Aug 04, the applicant was forwarded the notification for 
initiation of separation action by certified mail.  The applicant 
was further advised that a failure to reply would constitute a 
waiver of his rights.

On 31 May 05, the discharge authority concurred with the 
commander’s recommendation and directed the applicant be furnished 
an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation and 
the applicant was so discharged on 17 Jun 05.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFCC/SG recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an 
error or an injustice.  After reviewing the documentation it 
appears the applicant was discharged after psychiatric evaluation 
for an Axis 1 diagnosis in accordance with all applicable 
guidance.  The case was found to be legally sufficient, and the 
medical documentation substantiated the diagnosis.  Axis 1 
diagnoses were at that time and still are disqualifying for 
continued military service.  The applicant was appropriately 
discharged and coded for no reenlistment based on his condition.   

A complete copy of the AFRC/SG evaluation is at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reiterates he has never requested any psychiatric 
counseling or evaluation.  He believes an incorrect diagnosis was 
received.  He has never experienced any of the symptoms associated 
with an Axis 1 condition.  He was never notified of the diagnosis 
or prescribed any medications relating to the diagnosis.  He has 
been under the care of the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) 
since 2001.  His primary care provider since 2009 has provided a 
statement indicating the applicant has not and does not have an 
Axis 1 diagnosis or any symptoms that would require a mental 
health consultation.  A statement was provided from the DVA 
stating the applicant is not receiving monetary benefits, does not 
have a pending claim and does not have any service connected 
disabilities.

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


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.  We took 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include his 
rebuttal, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree 
with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis 
for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error of injustice.  The applicant has presented no evidence of an 
error or injustice that occurred in the discharge process or the 
assignment of the contested enlistment eligibility factor.  He has 
provided no evidence which would lead us to believe his discharge 
was improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing 
directive, or the reenlistment eligibility factor issued in 
conjunction with it was erroneous or inappropriately assigned.  
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 
basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

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.  
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.


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-2013-05794 in Executive Session on 2 Dec 14 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Dec 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFRC/SG, dated 18 Feb 14.
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 14.
Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.