RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00422 

 INDEX CODE: 100.03, 112.10 

 

 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Reentry (RE) code of 2C (involuntarily separated with an 
honorable discharge; or entry level separation without 
characterization of service) be changed to a code that will 
enable him to join the United States Navy (USN). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His discharge was inequitable because it was based on one 
isolated incident against him. His discharge was based on him 
having asthma and lying about it. He did inform his recruiter 
of a condition of asthma at age 2; however, he has not had any 
episodes since. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, issued in conjunction with his 19 Dec 07 discharge, 
discharge correspondence and medical records. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted 
from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the 
letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 


THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AETC/SGP recommends denial stating, in part, that they concur 
with the current narrative of separation of fraudulent 
enlistment and based on recent asthmatic symptoms, they do not 
support a second opportunity for military service. 

 

A review of the applicant’s medical records indicates he had 
asthma from age 2 – 7 treated with inhalers. While his 
statements suggest he had no further problems with asthma or 
respiratory symptoms, they are inaccurate. From his time in 
basic training, he actually experienced repeated symptoms of 
asthma and had a thorough examination by Pulmonary/Allergy 
specialists. His records indicated that he avoided exertion 
activity to prevent asthma flares growing up and once he entered 
basic training, he had repeated symptoms similar to those during 
his childhood. He was definitely diagnosed with moderate 
persistent asthma and discharged both for current symptoms as 
well as failure to disclose his past history. 

 

The complete AETC/SGP evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial, stating in part, the discharge was 
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of 
the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the 
discharge authority. 

 

The applicant’s commander notified him on 17 Dec 07 that he was 
recommending his discharge from the Air Force for fraudulent 
entry. The applicant intentionally withheld a prior service 
medical condition. Specifically, the applicant had a history of 
asthma which he failed to disclose on his pre-enlistment 
documents. Based upon the applicant’s failure to disclose his 
prior service medical condition, his commander recommended an 
entry level separation. 

 

The applicant acknowledged receipt and was afforded an 
opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf. The 
discharge authority approved the separation and directed an 
entry level separation (uncharacterized) discharge. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial, stating, in part, the applicant’s 
RE code of 2C is driven by his entry level separation with 
uncharacterized service. 

 

The RE code 2C is required based on the entry level separation 
with uncharacterized service per AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in 
the USAF, chapter 3. The applicant does not state his RE code 
is wrong, nor does he provide any evidence of an error or 


injustice in reference to his RE code. He states that he wants 
an RE code of 1#; however, the only 1# RE code a member can 
separate with is 1J (eligible to reenlist, but elects 
separation) and he cannot be awarded a RE code 1J as he was not 
selected for reenlistment by his commander under the Selective 
Reenlistment Program (SRP); nor was he eligible for 
consideration. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 15 Oct 10 for review and comment within 30 days. 
As of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit F). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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, we agree with the opinions and recommendation 
of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt 
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 evidence to the contrary, we find 
no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this 
application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2010-00422 in Executive Session on 18 November 2010, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Jan 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 19 Apr 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 14 Sep 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 15 Sep 10. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Oct 10. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair