RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00932 

COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her records be changed to reflect a different narrative reason 
for separation, a different separation code, and a different 
reentry (RE) code. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She had forgotten about her medical problems prior to her 
enlistment, because she had not seen a doctor in over two years. 

 

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a copy of her DD 
Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty 
and a copy of her separation order. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 23 September 2008, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air 
Force at the age of 27. She was progressively promoted to the 
grade of airman first class (E-3) effective and with a date of 
rank of 23 September 2008. 

 

On 28 September 2008, the applicant was put on medical hold and 
referred to the Behavioral Analysis Service (BAS) for evaluation 
after experiencing incidents of anxiety and panic while in Basic 
Military Training (BMT). During her evaluation, it was 
discovered that she had been diagnosed with anxiety disorder (not 
otherwise specified) in October 2007; however, her condition was 
not fully disclosed at the Military Entrance Processing Station 
(MEPS). On 8 October 2008, the applicant signed a statement 
indicating that she did not disclose her history of seizure 
disorder, migraines, or anxiety disorder, to MEPS or to her 
recruiter because she really wanted to join the Air Force to 
serve her country. 

 

On 10 October 2008, her commander notified the applicant that he 
was recommending her for discharge for fraudulent entry under the 
provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-3208, Administrative 


Separation of Airmen, Chapter 5, Section 5C, Defective 
Enlistments. Her commander indicated that had the Air Force 
known of her condition, it could have rendered her ineligible to 
enlist. The applicant acknowledged receipt of her commander’s 
intent and waived her rights to consult counsel and to submit 
statements in her own behalf. On 14 October 2008, the Assistant 
Staff Judge Advocate found the case to be legally sufficient and 
recommended she be discharged from service with an 
uncharacterized entry-level separation. On 15 October 2008, the 
discharge authority approved the recommended separation. On 
16 October 2008, the applicant was discharged with an entry-level 
separation with an uncharacterized service characterization. Her 
DD Form 214 indicates her narrative reason for separation as 
“Fraudulent Entry into Military Service,” a separation code of 
“JDA,” and a reentry code of “2C” (entry-level separation without 
characterization of service). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denying the applicant’s requests to change 
her separation code or narrative reason for separation. DPSOS 
indicates the documentation on file in her master personnel 
records support the basis for discharge. The discharge was 
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of 
the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the 
discharge authority. 

 

DPSOS indicates that airmen are given entry-level 
separations/uncharacterized service characterization when a 
separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous 
active service. The Department of Defense (DoD) determined if a 
member served less than 180 days continuous active service, it 
would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize 
their limited service. Therefore, the applicant’s 
uncharacterized character of service is correct and in accordance 
with DoD and Air Force Instructions. 

 

DPSOS states the applicant did not provide any evidence or 
identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge 
processing. While she contends that she forgot about her pre-
service medical conditions, the statement she signed while in BMT 
indicates that she did not disclose her medical conditions 
because she really wanted to join the Air Force and serve her 
country. The applicant provides no facts warranting a change to 
her narrative reason for separation. 

 

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

ARPC/DPSOA recommends denying the applicant’s request to change 
her reentry code. DPSOA indicates the reentry code “2C” is the 
only authorized code for members involuntarily separated with an 
entry-level separation, without characterization of service. 


 

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 21 August 2009 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit E). As of this date, this office has received no 
response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 in judging the 
merits of the case and do not find that it supports a 
determination that the applicant was improperly separated from 
active duty in 2008. The narrative reason for separation, 
separation code, and RE code which were issued at the time of the 
applicant’s separation accurately reflect the circumstances of 
her separation and we do not find it to be in error or unjust. 
In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence that the 
applicant was denied rights to which entitled, appropriate 
regulations were not followed, or appropriate standards were not 
applied, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air 
Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale 
as our finding in this case. Accordingly, the applicant’s 
request is not favorably considered. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 this application in 
Executive Session on 27 October 2009 under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 


 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2009-00932: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Jan 08, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 24 Jun 09. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 21 Jun 09. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Aug 09. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair