RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01078 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her reentry (RE) code of “2C” (involuntarily separated with a 
honorable discharge; or entry level separation without 
characterization of service) be changed to a “4C” RE Code 
(separated for concealment of juvenile records, minority, 
failure to meet physical standards for enlistment, failure to 
obtain a 9.0 reading grade level as measured by the Air Force 
Reading Abilities Test (AFRAT), or void enlistments). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She should not be penalized for her recruiter’s error and lack 
of judgment for withholding information. 

 

She would like to reenter another branch of the military. 

 

In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of two 
medical evaluations and a DD Form 293, Application for the 
Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the 
United States. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 16 Jun 09, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. 

 

On 15 Sep 09, the applicant was seen at the Behavioral Analysis 
Service (BAS) at Lackland AFB. The evaluation revealed the 
applicant received psychiatric care in May 2004, prior to her 
enlistment, and it was not disclosed on her enlistment 
documents. The evaluator recommended her retention. The 
applicant concurred with the recommendation and provided a 
written statement on 30 Oct 09. 

 

On 4 Nov 09, she was notified by her commander of pending 
discharge action. Specifically, the commander cited “Defective 
Enlistment” based on her DD Form 2807-1, Report of Mental 
History, as the basis for discharge. 


 

On 12 Nov 09, the assistant staff judge advocate found the case 
legally sufficient and recommended discharge with an entry level 
separation. The discharge authority concurred and directed an 
entry level separation for Erroneous Enlistment. 

 

On 13 Nov 09, the applicant was discharged with an 
uncharacterized entry level separation with the narrative reason 
for separation of “Erroneous Entry (Other)” and a RE Code of 
“2C.” 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

HQ AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states the RE code of 2C 
is required based on the priority of RE codes. Further, the 
applicant did not provide any evidence that proves an error or 
injustice occurred in her separation processing. 

 

The complete HQ AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

HQ AETC/SGPS states they support a change in the applicant’s RE 
code which would allow her to reapply for military service. 
SGPS states she seems to have remained asymptomatic and has done 
well since her separation. The medical evaluations presented by 
the applicant support her request for a change in her RE code. 

 

The complete HQ AETC/SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 9 Jul 10 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit E). As of this date, this office has not received a 
response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The BCMR Medical 
Consultant states that he empathizes with the dilemma confronted 
by the applicant during her period of abuse and acknowledges her 
alleged reason for not initially disclosing her previous 
hospitalization. However, this does not explain or invalidate 
the accuracy of the multiple diagnosed mental disorders 
appearing on her Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) 
document as disqualifying. He further states the Board has to 
determine if the applicant is a reasonable risk for returning to 
military service, noting that she demonstrated an absence of 
overt or acute manifestations of a mental disorder both prior to 


separation in September 2009 and upon re-evaluation in February 
2010. It remains unknown and unknowledgeable what the 
applicant’s level of response will be if she is re-exposed to 
the harsh rigors of training and other realities of military 
service; particularly in the context of the nation’s current 
wartime posture and the extreme mental and physical stressors 
confronting deployed members of all military departments; and 
sparing no particular Service component or career field. 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant states he cannot predict the future 
in this case, but recommends erring towards protecting both the 
applicant’s well-being and eliminating any unnecessary 
accompanying liability. Further, the applicant has not met the 
burden of proof of an error or injustice that warrants a change 
of RE code. 

 

If the Board grants the applicant the desired relief as 
recommended by HQ AETC/SGPS, the applicant would have yet to be 
accepted into military service, either through a waiver (which 
has been denied once by the Air Force) and/or clearance through 
MEPS medical officials; as would be required of any new recruit. 
The applicant should also be aware that a change of RE code to 
“4C” represents a person “separated for concealment of juvenile 
records,” among other reasons, and has the potential of being 
viewed as a greater detriment to her than the current “Erroneous 
Entry” currently showing on her DD Form 214. A more favorable 
RE code of “3K” would better serve the applicant’s needs. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

She concurs with the “3K” RE code as mentioned by the BCMR 
Medical Consultant. 

 

She reported her stay at the mental health center, which was a 
one-time visit that had several diagnoses by a nurse. Her 
recruiter advised her not to include the visit since it was for 
family issues. She had no follow-up or recurring stays in 
another state or local facilities. She was a minor at that time 
and had no say on where her parents put her and she was unable 
to leave at her own free will. During the same year, she was 
put in foster care with her brothers due to her parent’s “lack 
of responsibilities, morals, and drug consumption” in front of 
them. 

 

She took it upon herself to separate herself from family and 
friends to better her life. She was the first in her family to 
graduate from high school and is presently attending college as 
a criminal justice major. 

 


She has always had a passion for the Air Force and if given the 
opportunity, she will strive to be a valued military soldier. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit H. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by 
existing law or regulations. 

 

2. The application was timely filed. 

 

3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. While the 
applicant attributes her failure to disclose potentially 
disqualifying information regarding her mental health treatments 
to the advice of her recruiter, it cannot be conclusively 
determined from the evidence of record who was at fault. 
Nevertheless, after considering all the circumstances of the 
case, we believe it is appropriate to provide the applicant the 
opportunity to seek reentry into the military by assigning her a 
waiverable code. In coming to this decision, we carefully 
considered the recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant. 
However, we note that at the time of the applicant’s discharge, 
it was recommended she be granted a waiver for retention and a 
mental health evaluation determined that she was operating 
within the normal limits of psychological functioning. 
Additionally, she has provided an evaluation from a civilian 
provider which opines there are no reasons why the applicant 
could not serve in the military. Although we believe the 
applicant should be provided the opportunity to seek reentry, 
our decision in no way guarantees that she will achieve a 
successful outcome. Whether she is successful will be 
determined based on the needs of the service to which she 
applies and her ability to meet their established standards. 
Therefore, in the interest of justice, we believe the 
applicant’s records should be corrected as indicated below. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 
13 November 2009, she was separated with an uncharacterized 
entry level separation under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 with 
a reentry (RE) code of 3K. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-
2010-01078 in Executive Session on 25 January 2011, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 


 

, Panel Chair 

, Member 

, Member 

 

 

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The 
following documentary evidence was considered for Docket Number 
BC-2010-01078: 

 

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

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOA, dated 14 Jun 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AETC/SGPS, dated 30 Jun 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jul 10. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 

 3 Nov 10. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Dec 10. 

 Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Dec 10. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair