RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00520 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Reentry (RE) code of “2C” which denotes "Involuntarily separated 
with an honorable discharge; or entry-level separation without 
characterization of service” be changed to a “3” series RE code to 
allow him to enlist in the Air National Guard. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

After completion of basic training and security forces technical 
school, he was discharged based on his response to one of the items 
listed on his Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) questionnaire. There 
is no medical history or basis for concluding that the incident cited 
was more than an isolated juvenile stunt. His work history and 
performance in the Air Force are indicative of his maturity and 
stability. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, copies his medical records, DD Form 214, Certificate of 
Release or Discharge from Active Duty; DD Form 2808, Report of Medical 
Examination; and PRP Questionnaire. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 11 June 2008, the applicant completed a PRP questionnaire citing he 
had hurt himself on purpose. 

 

On 16 December 2008, the applicant completed DD Form 2807-1, Report of 
Medical History, and failed to disclose a self-mutilation condition. 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 5 May 2009 and was 
progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class. 

 

On 8 December 2009, the applicant was notified by his commander of his 
intent to recommend his discharge from the Air Force under the 
provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, 
Erroneous Entry. The specific reason for this action was his failure 


to disclose he deliberately cut himself. The applicant acknowledged 
receipt of the discharge notification and submitted a statement in his 
own behalf. On 16 December 2009, the judge advocate’s office reviewed 
the case, determined it was legally sufficient, and recommended an 
honorable discharge. The discharge authority approved the separation 
and ordered an honorable discharge. 

 

On 18 December 2009, he was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-
3208, for Erroneous Entry and received an RE code of “2C,” with 
service characterized as honorable. He served 7 months and 14 days on 
active duty. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the applicant disclosed on 
the Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) Questionnaire that he 
deliberately cut himself in the summer of 2008. Because the applicant 
failed to disclose this information on his Report of Medical History, 
he was cleared by the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS). 
DPSOS states an enlistment is only erroneous if at the time of 
enlistment, the Air Force was unaware of the conditions that would 
preclude his enlistment. DPSOS states that based on the documentation 
on file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and 
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. The discharge 
was within the discretion of the discharge authority. 

 

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states the applicant’s 
contentions and justification are in reference to his discharge and do 
not have anything to do with how his RE code was determined. 

 

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant states he answered the PRP questionnaire honestly and 
would have answered in the same way had the previous form asked for 
this information. The MEPS inquired about the scars on his shoulders 
and he informed them that he cut himself. Had the MEPS determined 
these scars rose to the level of mutilation or were indicative of any 
psychological concern, then entries to that effect would be made on 
the DD Form 2808. Instead, the MEPS determined that a designation of 
“normal” was appropriate. The Air Force knew of these scars on that 
date but dismissed them as not noteworthy. This facts could have been 
uncovered had a proper review been conducted. 

 

He does not feel the Air Force has given him due consideration on its 
obligation to fully investigate and evaluate their decision to 


discharge him. Section II of the PRP questionnaire clearly calls for 
an explanation of any no items. No explanation from item 5 was 
provided and because potentially disqualifying information (PDI) was 
being alleged, a medical review should have been conducted. 

 

He is submitting that his actions subsequent to discharge continue to 
support his contention that he had the capacity to be a successful and 
productive airman. He has secured employment with the Idaho 
Correctional Center. Securing this position entailed both physical 
and psychological evaluations and has led to a law enforcement 
certification. This, however, is not his chosen field and he will 
continue to pursue a career path in the Air Force. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 to warrant changing his RE 
code. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in 
judging the merits of the case, however; we found no indication the 
actions taken to effect his discharge or RE Code were contrary to the 
provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the time, or the 
actions taken against him were based on factors other than his failure 
to disclose that he deliberately cut himself. While the applicant 
argues the Air Force was aware of his scars and failed to conduct a 
proper review of the circumstances surrounding his discharge, the fact 
of the matter is, self-mutilation is disqualifying per the governing 
instructions. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and 
adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the 
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof he has suffered 
either an error or an injustice. In the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief 
sought. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

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-
00520 in Executive Session on 8 December 2010, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Feb 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 9 Sep 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 1 Nov 10 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Nov 10. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Nov 10, w/atchs 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair