RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03334 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Reentry Code (RE) of 4C (Failed Medical/Physical Procurement 
Standards) be changed so he can reenter the Air Force. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was discharged prematurely because his medical condition was 
blown out of proportion by the medical staff. He had headaches 
due to stress and possibly a new diet in addition to adjusting 
to military life. He has now fortified his body and mind and is 
better prepared to serve. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement and copies of a medical evaluation, two letters of 
recommendation, and his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or 
Discharge from Active Duty. 

 

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

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant entered active duty on 17 Feb 09. 

 

On 2 Apr 09, the applicant’s commander notified him of his 
intent to discharge him from the Air Force with an entry level 
separation for erroneous enlistment because he did not meet 
minimum medical standards to enlist as evidenced by his 
diagnosis of migraine headaches. The applicant acknowledged 
receipt of the action and waived his right to legal counsel and 
to submit statements in his behalf. 

 

On 3 Apr 09, the case was determined to be legally sufficient, 
and, on 6 Apr 09, the discharge authority concurred with the 
commander’s recommendation. On 7 Apr 09, the applicant was 
furnished an entry level separation with uncharacterized service 
for erroneous enlistment, with an RE Code of 4C, and a narrative 


reason for separation of “Failed Medical/Physical Procurement 
Standards.” 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of 
primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C 
and D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

HQ AETC/SGPS states the separation was done in accordance with 
established policy and administrative procedures. A review of 
his medical records indicates he had up to three headaches a 
week from Dec 08 throughout Basic Training. He was seen in the 
emergency room on 5, 10, and 23 Mar 09. He was diagnosed with 
migraine headaches with mixed tension headaches and was 
processed for entry level separation because his condition was 
disqualifying for military service. Since he appears to meet 
current accession criteria for military duty, a change to his 
Reentry Code could be supported. 

 

A complete copy of the AETC/SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
error or injustice which would warrant correcting the record to 
allow the applicant to reenlist. While it appears the applicant 
was erroneously issued an RE code of 4C (Failed Medical Physical 
Procurement Standards) and should have been issued an RE Code 2C 
(Entry Level Separation without characterization of service), he 
has provided no evidence of an error or injustice that would 
warrant changing his RE code to one that would allow him to 
reenlist. The RE code 2C applies to all entry level separations 
with uncharacterized service, regardless of whether the 
discharge is voluntary or involuntary. HQ AETC/SGPS states 
“since it appears that he currently meets accessions criteria, 
they can support a change of the RE Code.” However, while his 
separation was based upon his medical condition, the required RE 
code of 2C is not based on his medical condition, but upon DoD 
policy for entry level separations. Based on the documentation 
on file in his master personnel file, the discharge was 
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of 
the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the 
discharge authority. Accordingly, his RE code will be 
administratively changed to 2C, unless the Board determines 
otherwise. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 16 Dec 11 for review and comment within 30 days. 
As of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(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 warranting a 
change in the applicant’s RE Code to allow him to reenlist. 
After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the 
applicant’s complete submission, we find the discharge was 
consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge 
regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge 
authority. However, at the time of his separation he was issued 
an erroneous RE Code of “4C.” As a matter of Department of 
Defense policy, Airmen are given entry level separation with 
uncharacterized service, and RE Codes of 2C, when separation is 
initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service. 
Therefore, the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) 
will administratively correct the applicant’s RE Code to “2C.” 
Although an RE code of “2C” does not provide the applicant with 
the relief he is seeking, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the OPR and adopt their rationale as the basis 
for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice. Therefore, in view of the above, and in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which 
to recommend favorable consideration of the applicant's request. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2011-03334 Executive Session on 13 March 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 May 2011, w/atchs. 

Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AETC/SGPS, dated 11 Oct 11. 

Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 6 Dec 11. 

Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Dec 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair