RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03108 

COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His separation code of “JEM” (Expeditious Discharge) be changed 
on his DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His separation code on his DD Form 214 indicates he cannot work 
with others which kept him from obtaining numerous jobs. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a Department of 
Veteran Affairs (DVA) statement. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 28 June 1976, the applicant was notified of his commander’s 
intent to recommend him for discharge from the Air Force for 
being a marginal performer and for his negative attitude towards 
the Air Force. The discharge record reflects the applicant 
destroyed government property, failed to meet an appointment, and 
was caught speeding on base. His commander also indicated the 
applicant displayed an increasing trend toward being minimally 
productive and as having limited potential. 

 

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of 
discharge, consulted counsel, and waived his right to submit a 
statement in his own behalf. 

 

On 6 July 1976, the discharge authority approved the 
recommendation to discharge the applicant with an honorable 
characterization of service. On 9 July 1976, the applicant was 
honorably discharged with a separation code of “JEM” (Expeditious 
Discharge). He served one year and seven months on active duty. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 


AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states they have confirmed 
the separation code “JEM” does correctly reflect the applicant’s 
reason for discharge. Based on the documentation on file in the 
applicant’s master personnel records, the discharge, to include, 
the authority and reason, narrative reason for separation, and 
characterization of service, was consistent with the procedural 
and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was 
within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant 
did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices 
that occurred in the discharge processing. 

 

The compete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

DPSOA states that per Air Force Regulation 35-16 (the guidance in 
effect at the time applicant separated), the applicant’s correct 
Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code is “2P” (Separated under Air 
Force Manuel 39-10 as a marginal performer or to preserve good 
order or discipline) rather than “RE-2” (Conditions barring 
Reenlistment. AFPC/DPSOY will correct the applicant’s DD Form 
214 unless otherwise directed by the Board. 

 

The compete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

All the comments used to describe his separation are false. He 
has had symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) since 
he left the service. The injustice done to him is what made him 
sick with PTSD. He does not have the resources or the access to 
military documents; therefore, the Board will just have to take 
his word for it. 

 

The applicant complete rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit 
F. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 an injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of AFPC/DPSOS and adopt their rationale as the 


basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of 
an error or injustice in regard to his separation code. 
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 
basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this 
application. We note AFPC/DPSOA has provided an opinion 
indicating the applicant’s DD Form 214 reflects the incorrect RE 
code of “RE-2” and will correct it to “2P” upon Board action. We 
concur with their assessment. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that 
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 
that 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-2010-03108 in Executive Session on 7 June 2011, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2010-03108: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Aug 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 18 Jan 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 28 Jan 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Feb 11. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, not dated, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair