RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02514 

 

 

  COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, be corrected to change his Separation Program Designator 
(SPD) Code “JDA,” “Fraudulent Entry into Military Service” and 
Re-entry (RE) code of “2C,” Approved Honorable Involuntary 
Separation or Entry Level Separation, to allow him to apply for 
reentry into another branch of service. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His separation was based on medical misinformation and he would 
like his DD Form 214 changed to allow him to reenlist in the 
military. He did not report having asthma or Attention Deficit 
Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) during his MEPS physical. He 
takes full responsibility for not stating he had ADHD. He was 
excited about serving his country and forgot to mark it down. 
Regarding the asthma; he was told that he had reactive airway 
disease (RAD). It was not until later that he was told it was 
asthma. He should have remembered and documented it with the 
MEPS Doctor. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a written 
statement, copy of his DD Form 214 and other supporting 
documentation. 

 

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 
21 September 2010. 

 

On 8 October 2010, his commander notified him that he was 
recommending him for discharge under the provisions of Air Force 
Policy Directive (AFPD) 36-32, Military Retirements and 
Separations and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3208 Administrative Separation of Airmen, Chapter 5, Section C, 


Defective Enlistments. Specifically, he did not meet the 
medical requirements to enlist. On 8 October 2010, the 
applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander’s intent to 
discharge him and waived his right to consult counsel and submit 
statements on his own behalf. Subsequent to the file being 
found legally sufficient the discharge authority approved the 
recommendation and directed that the applicant be discharged 
with an entry-level separation. 

 

The applicant was discharged effective 15 October 2010 with an 
entry level separation. He was credited with serving 5 months 
and 7 days on active duty. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AETC/SGPS supports a change in the RE code. SGPS states that at 
the time the separation was done it was in accordance with 
established policy and administrative procedures. Since the 
applicant has had a negative methacholine challenge test and has 
not been treated for ADHD since 2008, they can support a change 
in his RE code. 

 

The complete AETC/SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states based on the 
documentation on file in the master personnel records, the 
discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive 
requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the 
discretion of discharge authority. 

 

The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors 
or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. He 
provided no facts warranting a change in his narrative reason 
for separation. 

 

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states the RE Code 2C is 
required based on the entry level separation with 
uncharacterized service and the applicant does not provide any 
evidence of an error or injustice in reference to his RE Code. 
HQ AETC/SG states their office can support a change in his RE 
Code to allow him to reapply for military service. However, the 
RE Code 2C is not driven by a medical condition and HQ AETC/SG 
(medical community) does not have authority or any valid input 
as to the correctness or recommended changes to the RE Code. 
They are qualified to recommend the applicant be given an 
opportunity to be medically screened for reentry into military 
service based on his current medical status (if otherwise 
eligible). A waiver of the RE Code 2C from recruiting services 
based on medical community’s recommendation would be more 
appropriate. 


 

DPSOA states if the Board’s decision is to provide a change of 
RE code, the only other option for applicant’s RE Code is 3K 
“Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or the AFBCMR when no other 
reenlistment eligibility code applies or is appropriate,” which 
would still require a waiver from recruiting services. 

 

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

In a letter dated 4 January 2012, the applicant reiterates his 
contention that he did not disclose having asthma or ADHD during 
his MEPS physical because he was never formally diagnosed with 
either condition. As a child, he was diagnosed with mild 
Reactive Airway Disease (RAD) not asthma. Neither he nor his 
parents were aware that asthma had been written in his medical 
records until it became an issue during BMT. Also as a child, 
he was tested for ADHD and was diagnosed with very mild symptoms 
and was given a low dose of medication which he took for 
approximately one month. The applicant states that upon his 
discharge from the Air Force he immediately sought formal 
testing for both illnesses. One test confirmed that he did not 
have asthma and the ADHD test showed he has only mild symptoms 
that do not require medication. It is his belief that he has 
met the requirements to reapply for enlistment. 

 

The applicant addresses the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility statements that he did not submit any evidence or 
identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge 
processing by pointing out what he believes were questionable 
medical ethics/treatment, lack of ability to communicate with 
his parents, and coercion to sign the forms and ask questions 
later. Additionally he points out that he was not given the 
opportunity to review or sign his DD Form 214 when he was 
discharged. 

 

In closing he reiterates that he did not knowingly commit fraud 
and asks that the reentry code and narrative reason for 
separation be corrected so that he may serve his country in the 
branch of service of his choice. 

 

The applicant’s complete response with attachments 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 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 and do not find that it supports a determination that 
the applicant was improperly separated from active duty in 2010. 
The narrative reason for separation, separation code, and RE 
code which were issued at the time of the applicant’s separation 
accurately reflect the circumstances of his separation and we do 
not find it to be in error or unjust. We took note of 
AETC/SGPS’ evaluation; however, in view of the above and absent 
persuasive evidence that the applicant was denied rights to 
which entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or 
appropriate standards were not applied, we agree with the 
opinions and recommendations of AFPC/DPSOS and AFPC/DPSOA and 
adopt their rationale as the basis for our determination in this 
case. Accordingly, the applicant’s request is not favorably 
considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 this application 
BC-2011-02514 in Executive Session on 2 February 2012, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 June 2011, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 27 July 2011. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 25 October 2011. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 29 November 2011. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 December 2011. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 4 January 2012. 

 
 Panel Chair