RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02196
INDEX CODE: 112.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: N0
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Due to a conflict between his military duties and responsibilities to his
family, he consulted the base Chaplain who misled him into applying for
separation as a conscientious objector.
In support of his request, he submits a personal statement, letter from XXX
XX XXXX, dated 15 May 2000, letter from Wing Chaplain, dated 5 August 2000,
character reference letters and other documentation.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 August 1979 in the grade
of A/1C for a period of 4 years.
On 28 February 1986, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent
to initiate discharge action against him for the following reasons:
a. 15 January 1986 - AF Form 422 Physical Profile Serial Report
restricting your duties based on a diagnosis of adjustment disorder with
mixed emotional features of anxiety and depression.
b. 10 February 1986 - Mental Health evaluation reflecting a
diagnosis of a personality disorder; specifically, you were diagnosed as
having an adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features of anxiety and
depression and a mixed personality disorder with significant dependent and
compulsive features.
The commander advised applicant of his right to consult legal counsel;
present his case to an administrative discharge board; be represented by
legal counsel at a board hearing; submit statements in his own behalf; or
waive the above rights after consulting with counsel.
On 3 March 1986, after consulting with counsel, applicant waived of his
right to a board hearing.
A legal review was conducted on 28 March 1986 in which the staff judge
advocate recommended that applicant be honorably discharged without
probation and rehabilitation.
A resume of the applicant's performance reports since 1980 follows:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
1 Aug 80 9
27 May 81 9
21 Nov 81 9
21 Jun 82 9
29 May 83 9
29 May 84 9
29 May 85 8
Applicant was honorably discharged on 10 April 1986, in the grade of staff
sergeant, in accordance with AFR 39-10 (Conditions That Interfer With
Military Service-Not Disability-Character And Behavior Disorder.) He served
a total of 6 years, 8 months, and 9 days total active duty.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The AFBCMR Medical Consultant, reviewed this application and states that it
would seem that the applicant’s requested conscientious objector (CO)
status was never documented and that his discharge was based on what
appears to be one valid and one tenuous psychological diagnosis. Although
complete information regarding the psychological reasoning that went into
making these diagnoses is missing from the records available for review, it
would seem the applicant’s service records over his 6 years of service
would point against him having a “Mixed personality disorder” marked by
“significant dependent and compulsive features,” as noted by his treating
psychologist. The Consultant would concede that the applicant likely was
experiencing an adjustment disorder of enough severity to warrant
discharge, as his duties were not in keeping with his desires to spend more
time with his family and resulting “anxiety and depression” can easily be
understood. His DD Form 214, block 27, does reflect an incorrect RE code.
He should have been given a “2C” reflecting an involuntary, but honorable,
separation instead of the recorded “2B.” This deserves correction. It is
clear that the applicant is not, and never was, a bonfide CO, and this
should not be a consideration in what the Board decides. Furthermore, the
situation that led to his adjustment disorder diagnosis has resolved, as
evidenced by his 14 years of post-service stability and current
psychological evaluation, and the most appropriate RE code to consider
would be a “3K” reflecting action of the AFBCMR and allowing him to
reenlist if otherwise qualified with a waiver for the adjustment disorder
that caused his separation so many years ago. He is of the opinion that
the records should be changed to show a code of “3K” in block 27 of the DD
Form 214 allowing the applicant to seek duty in the Reserves, with waiver,
if otherwise qualified. The narrative reason for discharge should not be
changed, as it was the true reason for his separation and is a valid
medical diagnosis if any reference to personality disorder in his prior
records is disregarded.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
The Military Personnel Management Specialist, Separations Branch,
AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and states that they concur with the
AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s recommendation that the applicant’s narrative
reason for separation should not be changed based upon the reason provided.
Applicant has not filed a timely request.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
The Directorate, Personnel Program Management, AFPC/DPPAE, also reviewed
this application and states that they recommend the applicant’s RE code be
changed to “3K,” Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or the AFBCMR. The AFBCMR
Medical Consultant advisory indicates a questionable medical diagnosis was
used as the basis to separate the applicant from active duty. In their
opinion, his active duty record of performance and post-service record
indicates he should be given another opportunity to reenter the military
with a separation waiver if otherwise qualified.
A complete copy of their Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 3 November copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant for review and response within thirty (30) days. 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest
of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice warranting a change in the
applicant’s RE code. We note the Air Force evaluation from the Chief,
Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, which states that the applicant’s DD Form 214,
Block 27, does reflect an incorrect RE code. A questionable medical
diagnosis was used as the basis to separate the applicant from active duty
(Adjustment and Personality Disorder). However, the situation that led to
his adjustment disorder diagnosis has resolved, as evidenced by his 14
years of post-service stability. Therefore, we agree with the
recommendation of the Medical Consultant to change the applicant’s RE code
to “3K.” We believe he should be afforded the opportunity to apply for a
waiver to enlist in the armed services. Whether or not he is successful
will depend on the needs of the service and our recommendation in no way
guarantees that he will be allowed to return to the Air Force or any branch
of the service. Therefore, we recommend his RE code be changed to “3K”
(Secretarial Authority).
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that at the time of his discharge on 10
April 1986, he was issued a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “3K.”
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 10 January 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Teddy L. Houston, Panel Chair
Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following
documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 May 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 13 Sep 00.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 27 Sep 00.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 20 Oct 00.
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 3 Nov 00.
TEDDY L. HOUSTON
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 00-02196
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to, be corrected to show that at the time of his discharge on 10
April 1986, he was issued a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “3K.”
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-00527
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00527 INDEX CODE: 100.03 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NOT INDICATED HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 26 AUG 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow him to reenter the military. However, the applicant has submitted evidence to support a change of...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2005-03826
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03826 INDEX CODE: 110.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 18 June 2007 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to one that will allow him to re-enter the military and that Item 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, of his DD Form...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02296
On 30 May 2001, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s requests to change the narrative reason and authority for his separation and to change his RE code (Exhibit C). Applicant has not submitted evidence of any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of his discharge, nor provided facts warranting a change to the narrative reason for his separation or RE code. Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit...
The 1 May 00 second opinion from the psychologist was noted; however, a majority of the Board further concludes that the narrative reason for discharge is appropriate. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV Chair AFBCMR 00-01513 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03597
The reason why he separated from the Air Force was due to both his parents having medical problems. Individuals who develop an adjustment disorder due to the stress of the routine rigors of military service with or without concomitant personal issues are not suited for military service and are subject to administrative discharge by their commander. The evidence of record indicates that the applicant was given an entry level separation after being diagnosed with an adjustment disorder.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00107
Because of the recurring nature of psychological stress-induced abdominal pain interfering with training, he was removed from training and placed in the medical hold squadron for medical evaluation board. At the time of the mental health evaluation, the applicant was already pending discharge for his abdominal pain however evidence of the record indicates that his Adjustment Disorder was of sufficient severity to warrant discharge on the basis of unsuitability. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05643
On 20 Jul 12, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) reviewed the applicants request to change the narrative reason and authority for his discharge. ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends changing the applicants narrative reason for separation to reflect Secretarial Authority. The applicant was not diagnosed with a personality disorder at any point during his military service; therefore, the fact that this diagnosis appears on his DD Form 214 is...
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Special Programs & AFBCMR Manager, HQ AFPC/DPPAES, also evaluated the case and explains why they corrected the applicant’s RE code from “3A” to “2N.” However, if the relief sought is granted, then the author recommends the applicant’s RE code be changed to “3K” (“Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or the AFBCMR when no other RE code applies or is inappropriate [sic].” [The definition for “3K” provided by DPPAES is incorrect because that meaning...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-00124
Her physician at the time of discharge now states that she is completely better and supports her decision to return to the Air Force as long as she is not returned to her previous Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) of security forces. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant states that the applicant was discharged for unsuitability, due to Adjustment Disorder and maladaptive personality traits, on 6 Jun 03, after 2...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00679
Furthermore, the report stated the applicant was deemed unsuitable for continued military service on the basis of the Narcissistic Personality Disorder. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicants request to change his narrative reason for separation to a medical discharge. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were...