RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04663 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

The following changes be made to his DD Form 214, Certificate of 
Release or Discharge from Active Duty: 

 

 1. His narrative reason for separation (Personality Disorder) 
and separation code (JFX) be changed. 

 

 2. His reentry (RE) code of 2K (Formally notified of 
involuntary separation),” be changed to a code that would allow 
reentry in the military. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

There were numerous judicial process failures under AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, regarding his discharge due 
process rights. 

 

While gathering information for possible employment with a local 
police department, he realized how stigmatic and inappropriate 
his discharge from the Air Force was. 

 

He demonstrated exemplary conduct both on and off duty. While it 
is true the military frustrated him during that time in his life, 
he controlled his immaturity and did his job in an excellent 
manner. His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), dated 24 Oct 02, 
portrays a healthy, contributing, upwardly mobile, dedicated 
airmen. One month later, because of a conversation he had about 
politics, he was recommended for separation. 

 

There was no diagnosed mental health disorder; no impairment to 
effective duty function; no psychiatric presentation on or off 
duty; no evidence to support adverse effects or poor job 
performance; and no opportunity to correct the “deficiency”; in 
fact, there was no deficiency. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, excerpts from AFI 36-3208, his EPR, his mental health 
examination findings, and a personal data RIP. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 


STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 15 Mar 01, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force, and was 
progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class. 

 

On 20 Sep 02, the applicant was evaluated by a psychiatrist for 
possible decertification from the Personnel Reliability Program 
(PRP). The psychiatrist recommended the applicant be permanently 
decertified from the PRP and administratively separated from the 
Air Force due to unsuitability. On 23 Sep 02, the PRP Medical 
Consultant concurred with his recommendation. 

 

On 4 Mar 03, the applicant was notified by his squadron commander 
that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for a 
condition that interfered with military service, specifically, a 
personality disorder. The reason for the proposed action was, 
the applicant was seen by a clinical psychiatrist and diagnosed 
with a personality disorder that rendered him unfit for duty. It 
was determined his psychological dysfunction was of such severity 
that his ability to function effectively in the military 
environment was significantly impaired. 

 

On 4 Mar 03, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
notification of discharge and after consulting with legal 
counsel, waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf. 

 

On 7 Mar 03, 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 
honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation. 

 

On 12 Mar 03, the applicant was honorably discharged by reason of 
personality disorder. He served on active duty for a period of 
1 year, 11 months, and 28 days. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change 
his RE code to one that would allow him to reenlist. DPSOA notes 
the applicant’s DD Form 214 reflects an erroneous RE code and, 
based on his involuntary separation with an honorable discharge, 
the appropriate RE code is “2C.” DPSOA states the applicant’s RE 
code will be administratively corrected to reflect 2C. 

 

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of his request to change his 
narrative reason for separation and separation code. DPSOS 
states, based on the documentation on file in the master 
personnel records, the discharge to include the narrative reason 
for separation and separation code was consistent with the 
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge 
instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge 
authority. 


 

DPSOS notes the applicant was suspended from PRP duties for 
expressing ideas and views that seriously conflicted with the 
spirit and intent of the PRP program. His records do not mention 
or support any violation of AFI 36-3208. Although the applicant 
is apparently coping well in his civilian capacity, it does not 
change the basis for which he was discharged. The military 
environment is unique and stressors encountered in such an 
environment may not appear or surface when removed from the 
military environment. 

 

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

After receiving the advisory opinion, he learned there were other 
mental health records in existence that are only available to his 
physician. So, on this matter, he will trust the Air Force’s 
documentation—there was a personality disorder. 

 

Regarding his physician’s report, section 5.11 of AFI 36-3208 
states “This explanation should detail the effects on member’s 
performance, conduct (on and off duty), or other reasons that 
would limit the member’s potential for completing his or her 
enlistment….” This report should not be used as, or substituted 
for, the explanation of the adverse effect of the condition on 
assignment or duty performance.” He was discharged because he 
ticked people off, not because he was worthless to the Air Force. 

 

Under section 5.1.1, the regulation states there should have been 
some reasonable effort to help him meet Air Force standards. A 
month after learning of his probable discharge, his supervisor 
gave him an excellent EPR. Both of his supervisors rated him as 
“ready” for promotion. These thoughts were written down after 
all of these events were set in motion. 

 

Even with an actual diagnosis of a personality disorder, he feels 
that the major injustice was that not one time did he ever get 
into any sort of trouble on or off duty while he was enlisted. 
The vast majority of cases similar to his deal with pervasive 
mental health manifestations such as fist fights, tantrums, 
suicidal ideations, drug or alcohol abuse, etc. 

 

He does not make a point of advertising his beliefs or political 
views. It all started when an airman whom he did not see eye to 
eye with, decided to exaggerate the context of casual comments he 
made to other members of his flight. Based on these comments the 
PRP decertification process began, which is what prompted the 
Life Skills appointment. 

 

After all that is said and done, and based on the mental health 
appeals the Board has ruled on in the past, he was shocked when 
he read in the advisory opinion that his discharge classification 


was warranted. He does not want his DD Form 214 to read that he 
was discharged for being what society thinks of as crazy. 

 

He has read dozens of similar cases where the applicant was 
successful in getting their narrative reason for separation 
changed to a more innocuous sounding “Secretarial Authority.” In 
his case, he has documented great work performance free of any of 
the negative issues that the majority of these cases share. 

 

While he would feel vindicated by his full request being granted, 
his real concern is over the SPD code and narrative reason for 
separation. He would like to enter a career in law enforcement 
and his DD Form 214 is the only issue that he needs to explain in 
his life. He has completed a Master’s Degree in Business 
Administration, received a Citizen’s Award from the local police 
department for his involvement in saving a life, and is also a 
licensed emergency medical technician (EMT). 

 

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. After carefully 
reviewing the applicant’s submission, to include his rebuttal, we 
do not believe relief is warranted in this case. The applicant 
contends there were numerous judicial process failures at the 
time of his discharge processing; however, we find no evidence to 
support his claim. Based on the evidence of record it appears 
the applicant’s discharge was in compliance with the governing 
instruction and that he was afford all due process rights. He 
states he demonstrated exemplary conduct and had no psychiatric 
presentation both on and off duty, and there was no diagnosis of 
a mental health disorder, to justify labeling his discharge as a 
“personality disorder.” The applicant states his case falls in a 
category of similar cases where relief was awarded by the AFBCMR; 
however, we note each case before this Board is considered on its 
own merits, and precedent does not bind us. While we strive for 
consistency in the manner in which evidence is evaluated and 
analyzed, we are not bound to recommend relief in one 
circumstance simply because the situation being reviewed appears 
similar to another case. Therefore, we find his narrative 
reason for separation is correct, and find no basis to recommend 
that it be changed. Regarding the applicant’s RE code, DPSOA 
does note the applicant’s RE code is in error and will be 
administratively corrected to 2C. We agree with this correction, 
and find no basis to upgrade his RE code to one that would allow 
his reentry. Therefore, aside from the administrative correction 


noted above, we find no basis to recommend granting further 
relief in this case. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2010-04663 in Executive Session on 3 Nov 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Dec 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 17 May 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 28 Jun 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 29 Sep 11. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Oct 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair