RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01172

					COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reason for her separation of “Adjustment Disorder” 
be removed from block 28 of her DD Form 214, Certificate of 
Release or Discharge from Active Duty.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  The narrative phrase “adjustment disorder” may impede her 
ability to find civilian employment as a clinical social worker.  
She acknowledges adjusting to the military culture was difficult 
but contends she does not have a mental health condition.  The 
characterization of her discharge has a negative stigma in the 
mental health community.  Further, “adjustment disorder” is 
unnecessary because the Separation Program Designator (SPD) Code 
(GFY - involuntary discharge due an adjustment disorder) is 
already on the DD Form 214 in block 26.

2.  The narrative wording is a Health Insurance Portability and 
Accountability Act (HIPPA) violation (by not protecting her 
confidentiality) because it is based on a medical diagnosis and 
should not be on the form.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 30 Jun 12, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air 
Force.

On 20 Mar 13, according to documentation provided by the 
applicant, the applicant’s commander referred her for a non-
emergent mental health evaluation to determine if she had a 
mental health condition that could account for her display of 
behaviors leading to administrative actions.  The evaluation 
revealed the applicant was experiencing symptoms of anxiety and 
depression likely attributable to both past and present life 
stressors.  The applicant was deemed unsuitable for continued 
service based on the diagnosis of an adjustment disorder with 
mixed anxiety and depression.

On 10 Mar 14, the applicant was furnished an honorable 
discharge, with a narrative reason for separation of “Adjustment 
Disorder,” and was credited with 1 year, 8 months, and 11 days 
of active service.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of 
primary responsibility (OPR), which are included at Exhibits C 
and D.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice.  After episodes at work where the 
applicant would excessively cry, exhibit increased anxiety, and 
have trouble with adapting to military customs and courtesies, 
the applicant’s commander directed her for a non-emergent mental 
health evaluation.  Based on the evaluation, the commander 
notified her that he was recommending her for an honorable 
discharge for a diagnosis of Axis I, Adjustment Disorder with 
Mixed Anxiety and Depression; a condition that interferes with 
military service.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
notification of discharge and was advised of her right to 
consult with legal counsel and submit statements on her own 
behalf.  The discharge authority approved the separation and 
directed the applicant be discharged with an honorable service 
characterization.  The narrative reason for separation and 
character of service was consistent with the procedural and 
substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was 
within the discretion of the discharge authority.

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

AFPC/JA recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an 
error or injustice.  Omitting block 28 as the applicant requests 
is not permissible; DoDI 1336.01, Certificate of Release or 
Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214/5 Series), requires the 
DD Form 214 be prepared accurately and completely, to include a 
narrative reason for separation, separation code, and reentry 
code (if applicable).  Based on the conditions upon which she 
separated, the narrative description in block 26 of her DD Form 
214 accurately summarizes her service, regardless of any changes 
that occur post-service.  With regard to impeding future 
employment, Copy 1 of the applicant’s DD Form 214 is sufficient 
proof of service without the conditions of her separation.  
Further, there is no basis for the assertion the narrative 
language is a HIPPA violation.  Military medical providers may 
release protected health information to AFPC, without the 
individual's authorization or opportunity to object, when 
required by law or government regulation, such as those 
regulations governing the preparation of the DD Form 214 or 
separation process.

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


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 28 Jul 14 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit E).  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 error or injustice.  We took notice 
of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, the Board majority agrees with the opinions 
and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility (OPR) and adopts their rationale as the basis for 
its determination that the applicant is not the victim of an 
error or injustice.  The majority finds no evidence of an error 
or injustice that occurred during the discharge process.  Based 
on the available evidence of record, it appears the discharge 
was consistent with the substantive requirements of the 
discharge regulation and within the commander's discretionary 
authority and the applicant has provided no evidence which would 
lead us to believe the narrative reason for discharge was 
contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation.  
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board 
majority finds no basis upon which to recommend granting the 
relief sought.


RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or 
injustice and recommends the application be denied.



The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-01172 in Executive Session on 17 Dec 14 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny the application.  
M.    voted to grant the application and has submitted a 
minority report.  The following documentary evidence was 
considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Mar 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 9 Apr 14
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 13 May 14
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jul 14.
	Exhibit F.  Minority Opinion, dated 23 Dec 15.