RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02696 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His reentry code of 2B “Involuntarily discharged with a general 
discharge” be changed to a code that would allow him to reenlist 
in the Air Force or another branch of service. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He had a medical condition (Graves’ Disease and Hyperthyroidism) 
prior to his discharge that the Air Force never treated him for 
nor followed-up on. 

 

At his discharge physical his summary sheets clearly state that 
he was diagnosed with unexplained hypertension, and needed 
follow-up by the Air Force and to be further evaluated. This 
never happened. Had this happened it would have proven he had a 
hyperthyroid problem known as Graves’ Disease. 

 

Graves’ Disease is triggered by stress in which the thyroid 
secretes too much of the body’s hormones that control the 
cardiovascular system and attacks the logic center of ones’ 
brain. This explains his inability to reason and make rationale 
and logical choices and decisions. 

 

He was a great Airman and would like another chance to serve. 

 

He has been treated successfully for Graves’ Disease and is 
medially cured. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, and copies of his service and medical records. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 24 Jan 06, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force, and was 
progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class. 

 

On 12 Dec 07, the applicant was notified by his squadron 
commander that he was recommending his discharge from the Air 


Force for a pattern of misconduct, conduct prejudicial to good 
order and discipline. The reasons for the proposed action were: 

 

 1) On 12 Oct 07, the applicant received nonjudicial 
punishment (NJP) for several offenses to include: a) He between 
on or about (a/o) 12 Sep 07 and o/a 14 Sep 07, was derelict in 
the performance of his duties in that he willfully failed to 
immediately report an accident involving two government owned 
vehicles to the law enforcement desk, as it was his duty to do 
so; b) He did o/a 14 Sep 07, through neglect, damage by collision 
two government owned vehicles of a value of more than $500.00, 
military property of the United States, the amount of said damage 
being in the sum of about $2,761.11; c) He was the driver of the 
vehicle at the time of an accident in which said vehicle was 
involved, and having knowledge of said accident, did, between o/a 
12 Sep 07 and o/a 14 Sep 07, wrongfully leave the scene of the 
accident without making his identity known; d) He o/a 18 Sep 07, 
was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he 
willfully failed to immediately report an accident involving a 
government vehicle to the law enforcement desk, as was his duty 
to do so.; e) He, a passenger in a vehicle at the time of an 
accident in which said vehicle was involved, and having knowledge 
of said accident, did, o/a 18 Sep 07 by neglect, assist the 
driver of said vehicle in wrongfully leaving the scene of the 
accident without providing assistance to the occupant who had 
been struck by the said vehicle. Punishment imposed was a 
reduction in grade to airman basic, with reduction below airman 
being suspended until 11 Apr 08, unless sooner vacated, and 
45 days of extra duty. 

 

 2) On 23 Oct 07, the applicant stole a Motorola RAZR cell 
phone, of a value of about $139.99, the property of another 
airman. For this misconduct, on 11 Dec 07, the commander vacated 
the suspended portion of his NJP and he was reduced to the grade 
of airman basic, with a date of rank of 12 Oct 07. 

 

On 17 Dec 07, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
notification of discharge and waived his right to legal counsel, 
and to submit statements in his own behalf. 

 

On 18 Dec 07, the base legal office reviewed the case and found 
it legally sufficient to support the basis for separation. The 
discharge authority approved the separation and directed an under 
honorable conditions (general) discharge without probation and 
rehabilitation. 

 

On 4 Jan 08, the applicant was discharged in the grade of airman 
basic, by reason of misconduct and received an RE code of 2B. He 
served on active duty for a period of 1 year, 11 months, and 
11 days. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 


AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states the applicant’s RE 
code (2B) is correct based on his involuntary discharge with a 
general (under honorable conditions) character of service. The 
applicant has provided no proof of an error or injustice in 
reference to his RE code. 

 

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the applicant did not 
provide any evidence of an error or injustice to warrant a change 
to his discharge characterization. 

 

DPSOS states based on the documentation on file in the master 
personnel records, the discharge, to include his service 
characterization, was consistent with the procedural and 
substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was 
within the discretion of the discharge authority. 

 

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of a change in his 
assigned RE code. 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant in addressing the applicant’s request 
for an RE code change notes that Department of Defense 
Instruction (DoDI) 6130.03, Medical Standards for Appointment, 
Enlistment, or Induction in the Military Service, contains a 
listing of medical conditions that are disqualifying for entry 
into military service and under Endocrine and Metabolic 
conditions is listed current or past history of hyperthyroidism. 
Additionally, listed among disqualifying Learning, Psychiatric, 
and Behavioral disorders is attention deficit hyperactivity 
disorder (ADHD). Exceptions to the latter policy statement 
include: (1) The applicant has not required an Individualized 
Education Program or work accommodations since the age of 14; (2) 
There is no history of co-morbid mental disorders; (3) The 
applicant has never taken more than a single daily dosage of 
medication or has not been prescribed medication for this 
condition for more than 24 cumulative months after the age of 14; 
(4) During periods off of medical after the age of 14, the 
applicant has been able to maintain at least a 2.0 grade point 
average without accommodations; (5) Documentation from the 
applicant’s prescribing provider that continued medication is not 
required for acceptable occupational or work performance; and (6) 
The applicant is required to enter service and pass Service-
specific training periods with no prescribed medication for ADHD. 
The psychiatric letter of 11 Jul 09, indicates the applicant 
sought help at “Presbyterian Counseling Center and was prescribed 
Lexapro and Strattera for anxiety and for attention deficit 
disorder. It is not known whether he meets any other exception 
to policy criteria. Thus, even if the Board elected to change 
the applicant’s RE code, he would likely require a waiver via HQ 
AETC/SGP, if applying for Air Force approval, for both ADHD and 
the history of hyperthyroidism, in order to be accepted into 
military service; notwithstanding the need to be ultimately 


cleared again by MEPS medical officials for entry to military 
service. 

 

The cause of Graves’ Disease is believed to be of autoimmune 
origin, with possible genetic and environmental factors 
considered. The Medical Consultant agrees the expression of 
human behavior and mood at a given time may be influenced by 
endocrine function, through the action of various brain 
neurotransmitters as intermediaries. The Consultant opines that 
had the applicant been diagnosed prior to separation, it is 
possible he would have been retained on active duty until his 
medical condition was brought under reasonable control, or he was 
processed through the Disability Evaluation System (DES). If 
found unfit, although rarely for treated thyroid conditions, he 
would have been confronted with a “dual action” review by the 
Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council for determining the 
appropriate reason for separation (administrative versus medical) 
and character of service. 

 

If the Board determines the applicant’s hyperthyroid made him 
vulnerable to commit the misconduct, then the Consultant opines 
it would be appropriate to change both the narrative reason for 
separation and to upgrade the character of service. However, the 
Consultant finds difficulty establishing a definitive causal 
relationship between the applicant’s admitted conscious decisions 
not to report two vehicular accidents, one which he himself 
characterized as “stupid and immature,” and to steal (although 
initially denied) a cell phone, and then to attribute these acts 
to an undiagnosed hyperthyroidism. Indeed, the applicant’s ADHD 
may have, as much, influenced his poor impulse control and 
decision-making. Therefore, while rendering the benefit of doubt 
for mitigation and extenuation involving the applicant’s 
misconduct, the Consultant opines it does not exonerate him of 
the offenses committed. The applicant has not met his burden of 
proof of an error or injustice that warrants the desired change 
in RE code. 

 

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit 
E. 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

His USAF physical dated 12 Dec 07, clearly states it was 
recommended he have a follow-up to determine the source of his 
high blood pressure and extreme weight loss. He is certain had 
this occurred, his physical, emotional and mental health issues 
in regards to Graves’ Disease would have been diagnosed and 
proper treatment followed. 

 

He supplied the Board with expert medical information from his 
Endocrinologist, and a full psychiatric evaluation, that fully 
support the medical problems, mental confusion, and the lack of 
being able to make correct logical decisions that occurred from 
the Spring 2007 to his date of discharge. 

 


He was an outstanding airman until his mind and body became 
compromised due to his undiagnosed Graves’ Disease in 2007. He 
feels his military problems can be traced to the effects of this 
disease. His medical providers clearly stated this was triggered 
by the stress of his destructive marriage, his baby daughter 
being born with a life threatening heart defect, and his constant 
struggle to meet his monthly financial responsibilities. 

 

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit G. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. After 
thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the 
applicant’s contentions, we are not persuaded that he has been 
the victim of an error or injustice. We find no evidence to 
indicate the applicant’s RE code was in error or contrary to the 
prevailing instruction. The RE code which was issued at the time 
of the applicant’s separation accurately reflects the 
circumstances of his separation and we do not find this code to 
be in error or unjust. In this respect we note the applicant’s 
request is centered on the fact that while he was in the service 
he was suffering from a medical condition that he believes may 
have made him vulnerable to commit the misconduct. He states he 
was successfully treated for Graves’ Disease and is medically 
cured, and would like the opportunity to serve in the military. 
After considering the opinions and recommendations of the Air 
Force offices of primary responsibility and the BCMR Medical 
Consultant, we accept their rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error 
or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence 
indicating the RE code is erroneous or unjust; we conclude that 
no basis exists to recommend granting the relief sought in this 
application. 

 

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 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 Docket Number 
BC-2010-02696 in Executive Session on 4 Oct 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 Aug 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 21 Jul 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 7 Feb 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, 17 Jun 11. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Jul 11. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Aug 11. 

 

 Panel Chair