RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00881 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. He be reinstated on active duty effective 28 Feb 07, with 
retroactive pay. 

 

2. His reentry (RE) code of 2C (involuntarily separated with an 
honorable discharge) be changed to a favorable RE code.” 

 

3. He be extended on active duty for a period of two years with 
a Date of Separation (DOS) of 19 Sep 11. 

 

4. He be promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4/SrA). 

 

5. He be eligible to test for promotion to the grade of staff 
sergeant (E-5/SSgt). 

 

6. He be given an opportunity to take his Career Development 
Course (CDC) test for his 5-skill level training. 

 

7. He be eligible for tuition assistance and other educational 
benefits and entitlements from 2005 to present. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His reason for separation of adjustment disorder is erroneous. 
In a 10-page statement, the applicant outlines how he was the 
victim of unfair treatment. Among the major points he makes 
are: 

 

After returning from his deployment, he found his room 
vandalized and pretty much destroyed. He reported this to his 
supervisor, who he believes might have been an accomplice. He 
tried to exercise his right under Article 139 of the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) by reporting the incident to his 
superintendent and chain of command. However, all of his 
actions were to no avail; none of his co-workers were punished 
and he was reprised against for reporting the incident. 

 

He had a good performance record and did not receive good 
representation from his area defense counsel. He was labeled as 
having an adjustment disorder and psychological problems. 


 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, giving a description of the circumstances surrounding 
his diagnosis and separation action; extracts from his military 
personnel record, including copies of his DD Forms 214, Certificate or Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued in 
conjunction with 28 Feb 07 separation, several letters of 
recommendation and character reference. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

Prior to the events under review, the applicant enlisted in the 
Regular Air Force, on 20 Sep 05, for a period of five years. 

 

On 7 Feb 07, the squadron commander notified the applicant that 
he was initiating administrative discharge action for mental 
disorders. The specific reason for the proposed action was that 
on or about 1 Feb 07, the applicant was diagnosed with an 
Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and 
Conduct, to include problems related to occupation, primary 
support, and social environment which significantly impaired his 
ability to function in the military environment. On that same 
date, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge 
notification, and on 13 Feb 07, he submitted statements in his 
own behalf. The Staff Judge Advocate found the case file 
legally sufficient to support separation and recommended an 
honorable discharge, without probation and rehabilitation (P&R). 
The discharge authority approved the honorable discharge, 
without P&R. 

 

The applicant was honorably discharged, on 28 Feb 07, with a 
reason for separation of adjustment disorder and issued an RE 
code of 2B (Separated with a general or under other than 
honorable conditions (UOTCH) discharge, which was subsequently 
corrected to 2C (involuntarily separated with an honorable 
discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of 
service. He was credited with 1 year, 5 months, and 11 days of 
active duty service. 

 

The applicant requested his application be administratively 
closed, in Jan 11, and requested it be reopened in Jan 12. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of the applicant’s request for a 
change to his narrative reason for separation, separation code, 
and reinstatement. The applicant’s claims of unfair treatment 


are not supported by the record, nor does he provide evidence to 
substantiate his petition. Based on the documentation on file 
in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the 
narrative reason for separation was consistent with the 
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge 
instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge 
authority. They found no evidence of an error or injustice in 
the processing of the applicant's discharge action. 

 

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to have 
his RE code changed to an eligible code. They note the 
applicant was involuntarily discharged for an adjustment 
disorder and received an erroneous RE code of 2B (Separated with 
a general or under other than honorable conditions (UOTCH) 
discharge, which was corrected to 2C (involuntarily separated 
with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without 
characterization of service. 

 

They indicate the applicant has not provided any proof of an 
error or injustice in reference to his RE code. His 
justification for his request is in reference to his 
circumstances that led to his discharge and his discharge 
processing. The RE code 2C is required per AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the USAF, chapter 3, based on his involuntary 
discharge with an honorable character of service. 

 

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

AFPC/DPSIPV recommends denial of the applicant’s request for 
reinstatement and service credit, noting the applicant was 
involuntarily discharged with 1 year, 5 months, and 11 days of 
active service, after being diagnosed with an Adjustment 
Disorder. 

 

The complete DPSIPV evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

AF/A1DLV recommends denial of the applicant’s request for 
military tuition assistance. Based on the records provided, 
they found no way to determine the education status of the 
applicant during the time period he has requested. He did not 
attend college prior to separation so he has nothing on which to 
base a request for military tuition assistance (Mil TA) prior to 
his separation in 2007. 

 

The complete AF/A1DLV evaluation is at Exhibit F. 

 

AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial of the applicant’s request to take 
the Career Development Course (CDC) exam for 3S051B upon 
reinstatement on active duty. They note the applicant was 
enrolled in the CDC in Nov 06 and discharged from the Air Force 
in Feb 07 prior to taking the course exam; his enrollment 
expired in Dec 07 for non-participation.. 


 

The complete DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit G. 

 

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicant’s request for 
promotion to the grade of SrA, stating, in part, he did/does not 
possess the minimum eligibility requirements of 36 months time-
in-service (TIS) and 20 months time-in-grade (TIG) for promotion 
to SrA. If reinstated to active duty, the applicant would have 
an opportunity to test for SSgt when he meets all eligibility 
requirements. 

 

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit H. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

 

He reiterated his original contentions that he was reprised 
against and that he should receive the requested relief. He 
believes the letters of support describe the favoritism in his 
office and that it was not fair to have him discharged. 

 

In support of his response, the applicant provides additional 
testimonies and letters of support. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We note the 
applicant alleges reprisal from his superiors. However, based 
upon our own independent review of the available evidence, the 
applicant has not established the actions by his superiors were 
an act of reprisal. We further note there is no evidence the 
applicant filed a complaint of reprisal with the IG nor did we 
find a basis to direct such an investigation. In addition, 
while the applicant believes his diagnosis is incorrect, the 
discharge and the assigned RE code appears to comply with the 
governing AFI and we find no evidence to indicate that his 
separation or his narrative reason for separation from the Air 
Force was inappropriate. Therefore, we agree with the opinions 
and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis 


for our decision the applicant has failed to sustain his burden 
of having suffered either an error or injustice. Additionally, 
in looking at his request in its entirety, we did not find a 
sufficient basis to determine that his request falls under Title 
10 USC 1034 or that the actions of his commander were arbitrary 
or capricious. In view of the above, we find no basis upon 
which to favorably consider 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-2010-00881 in Executive Session on 10 July 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Mar 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 27 Sep 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 28 Oct 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSIPV, dated 9 Nov 10. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, AF/A1DLV, dated 17 Nov 10. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 30 Nov 10. 

 Exhibit H. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 7 Dec 10. 

 Exhibit I. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Dec 10. 

 Exhibit J. Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Jan 12. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair